In an ideal world, I know "two wrongs do not make a right" but in the real world (or at least mine) I have often found that although they may not make a right, they often stop further "wrongs".
However, that does not stop smug third parties sometimes commenting "two wrongs don't make a right" - what would be a an appropriate proverbial response?
To provide the reference for Peter Shor's comment, now removed:
to fight against an opponent by using the same methods or weapons that the opponent uses
[Merriam Webster Dictionary]
Two wrongs don't make right, but three lefts do.
evil prospers when good men do nothing
This saying appears in various forms. Here's one
Edmund Burke, one of the foremost political speakers of 18th century England, said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
https://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/life/Evil_Prospers_When_Good_Men_Do_Nothing/37074/p1/
To be politically correct I suppose some would change it to, "evil prospers when good people do nothing"
I was going to say “the ends justify the means” and link to Wiktionary. That article links to “all’s fair in love and war”, which I like much better as a retort to “two wrongs...”
Leviticus 24:19–21 has:
“eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth”
which may be ‘appropriate’ to the poster’s purpose in some circumstances, although civilized societies are supposed to have outgrown this attitude.
(Not strictly a proverb, but biblical quotations have that kind of status. )
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", there are times where an action may be wrong but it's still the best choice you've got. An insistence upon some fanciful perfect action that realistically cannot be achieved in the circumstances - and thus doing nothing - may well make things even worse.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
This phrase suggests that someone who does something bad implicitly opens themselves up to having bad things done to them. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it is more acceptable to wrong someone who has wronged you. A second wrong in retaliation for a first one may not be the "right" thing to do, but the person had it coming.
If someone calls you a foul name, you could respond in kind. While someone might point out that "two wrongs don't make a right", you can justify your retort by suggesting that the person "shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it".
Consider a specific case: if a 'wrong' was 'damage to a ship' on the starboard side - causing said ship to list - and another, intentional but measured/controlled 'wrong' was judiciously affected to the port side such that the list was corrected, the ship 'righted', lives saved, etc. - it would be true that 'two wrongs make aright' (the ship in this case). Is this a retort? Not yet, but it does provide a basis for defense of the initial 'proverb' (which it is not, biblically speaking).
Like many sayings, intended meaning is dependent on the meaning as understood by the speaker (even if colloquial / common), perceived meaning as perceived by a hearer. Only after establishing 'intended meaning' can useful dialog begin.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
My frequent answer to people who say this to me is, "Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?" and proceed to question their moral and ethical boundaries to determine the reasons they believed my actions were in any way wrong.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
