"Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse"

Human nature often seeks justification for actions, especially when they are ethically questionable. The phrase “Two wrongs don’t make a right, but they make a good excuse” from Thomas Szasz cleverly exposes how individuals rationalize their own bad behavior by pointing out similar actions in others. When someone has been wronged, they may feel licensed to retaliate or act unjustly themselves. Instead of acknowledging their responsibility, they deflect criticism by highlighting the initial wrongdoing, hoping to shift focus away from their own actions.

This line taps into the common fallacy that mutual wrongdoing somehow cancels out guilt or wrongdoing in the second party, but Szasz strips away the moral facade, revealing that such responses are more about excuses than fairness or justice. Excuses can serve as psychological tools for self-preservation. They allow people to protect their self-image and avoid the discomfort of guilt. It’s easier to convince oneself that “if they did it, I’m justified in doing it too.”

The appeal of this mindset is evident in everyday situations, ranging from playground disputes to international conflicts. Whether it’s siblings arguing over fairness or nations avenging past aggressions, the logic remains consistent. As long as both parties point to each other's misdeeds, actual accountability is sidestepped. The quote captures this irony, using humor to emphasize the absurdity of thinking that repeating a wrong could ever create a genuine right. Instead of solving problems or restoring justice, these cycles only perpetuate resentment and misunderstanding.

By highlighting the seductive nature of excuses, Szasz’s words encourage reflection on personal and collective responsibility. They invite readers to move beyond self-justification and toward genuine integrity, challenging the tendency to measure one’s morality by the actions of others rather than by absolute ethical standards.