The phrase “two wrongs make a right” is fallacy, often used to justify unethical or harmful actions by pointing to another wrongdoing. It operates on the flawed premise that if one party commits an injustice, another party can respond with a similar injustice, and the two wrongs somehow balance out. This reasoning is incorrect because it does not make the second action morally or ethically acceptable, it merely shifts the focus from addressing the root problem to perpetuating a cycle of harm. It’s anti-thesis is the phrase “Two wrongs do not make a right”

Thinkers like Aristotle emphasized the importance of virtue and ethical consistency, arguing that actions must be judged on their own merits rather than in comparison to others. The fallacy of “two wrongs” suggests that harm can be justified if it is reciprocated. This is a dangerous mindset, as it can lead to escalation, corruption, and a breakdown of ethical standards. The fallacy falls into the category of false equivalence, where two unrelated or unequal things are presented as having equal weight or justification. It is a mental model that encourages short-term thinking and reactive behavior, rather than long-term ethical decision-making.

See link: Two wrongs don’t make a right – Wikipedia

IT Decision-Making Scenarios

Example 1: Justifying Poor Security Practices
An IT leader observes that a competitor has suffered a data breach and assumes that their own organization can afford to cut corners on cybersecurity measures, reasoning that “if they did it, we can too.” This fallacy ignores the fact that every organization must take responsibility for its own security, regardless of what others do. The result is a weakened defense posture and increased risk of a breach.

Example 2: Delaying a Project to Match a Competitor
An IT team delays the launch of a new product because a competitor has also postponed theirs, assuming that “if they did it, we can too.” This fallacy leads to missed opportunities and a loss of competitive advantage. It also ignores the unique context of each organization, such as market conditions, internal capabilities, and customer expectations.

The “two wrongs make a right” fallacy is a dangerous mental trap where an unethical or poor decision is justified by pointing to a prior wrong. In an IT context, this might look like: “Our cloud costs are out of control, so we’ll slash the budget for security tools” or “The vendor overcharged us, so we’ll deliberately underpay the next one.” This reasoning is flawed because compounding errors doesn’t create balance—it creates a cycle of harm and short-term thinking that damages long-term value. For IT leaders, rejecting this fallacy is critical. It means moving beyond reactive cost-cutting or blame-shifting and instead committing to:

• Ethical, strategic decision-making that considers total impact.
• Data-driven cost optimization (core to FinOps) that aligns spend with business outcomes.
• Building a culture of accountability and transparency across the entire IT portfolio.

Ultimately, breaking the cycle of “two wrongs” is how we foster sustainable excellence, trust, and true financial discipline across the enterprise.

Subscribe to continue reading

Become a paid subscriber to get access to the rest of this post and other exclusive content.

Type your email…

Subscribe

Already a paid subscriber?