I was reading a recent discussion here about fallacies like the strawman, the slippery slope and so on. I hope you haven’t discussed this before - guest accounts can’t search.
So my argument is this: the two wrongs don’t make a right fallacy is one I often disagree with. I don’t think the examples on the page linked above are very good. I’ll try and make one of my own to clarify the point.
Suppose two cars go through a red light. A policeman stops yours and is about to fine you, while the other car gets away with it. The policeman can’t stop two cars simultaneously. You say 'why are you fining me? that guy went through the red light too and you didn’t fine him!". You have just committed the ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ fallacy.
But IMO, what is ‘right’ is often a synonim for what is ‘fair’ and what is ‘just’. If we can distribute unfairness more equally, that to me is the right thing to do. It is unfair to fine only one of the cars. Fine both, and that’s ideal justice. Fine neither, and that is wrong in terms of punishing uncivilized behaviour, but right as far as the distribution of unfairness goes, ergo, it is not right.
I don’t believe your car scenario is an example of the Tu Quoque fallacy. Nobody is arguing that it was right for the lucky driver not to get fined, we merely accept the limitations of a real-life police service who cannot punish all indiscretions.
Injustice exists, unfortunately. It should be minimised. Avoidable injustice should not be allowed to continue merely because unavoidable injustice exists.
The cited definition of “two rights do not make a wrong” (but not all accompanying examples) refers to wrongs between two persons. The usual instance of this fallacy occurs between members of two groups.
Example: Ruritanian A kills Slobodian B because Slobodian C killed Ruritanian D.
I think it’s a perfectly good example of “to quoque.” That’s exactly what the fallacy is, rationalizing wrongs because other people have committed wrongs. It’s often done by people who were caught speeding.
However, I think the OP is interesting to think about. It is true that many people are less interested in what is “right” and more interested in what is “fair.” They know what they did was technically illegal, but it’s not fair to single one person out. The prevalence of “to quoque” in political discussions has a lot to do with (often misconceived) feelings of justice and fair-treatment instead of accuracy or “rightness.” Hence the “your candidate lies and his lies are bigger!” political debate.