Tu quoque

Tu quoque (IPA: /tu ˈkwoʊkwɛ/, Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions. ^[1]

Contents 1 Illegitimate use 1.1 You-too version 1.2 Inconsistency version 2 Legitimate uses 2.1 You-too version 2.2 Inconsistency version 3 See also 4 References

Illegitimate use

In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.

You-too version

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.

A is also guilty of P.

Therefore, P is dismissed.

This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

Example:

"He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel."

Inconsistency version

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes claim P.

A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.

Therefore, P is false.

This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.

Example:

"You say aircraft are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said aircraft fly because of magic."

Legitimate uses

Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.

You-too version

A legitimate use of the you-too version might be:

A makes criticism P.

A is also guilty of P.

Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.

Another legitimate use of this version asserts:

A makes criticism of P for Q.

A is also guilty of Q.

Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's beliefs.

Example:

Version 1: "You say that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, but support killing in self-defense; you are either being inconsistent, or you believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified."

Version 2: "You claim to believe that taking a human life is always wrong, and you criticize John for it. Contradictory to this, you also support killing in self-defense. You are a hypocrite and are inconsistent in your criticisms."

Note the difference between this legitimate usage and the fallacious one: in the latter, we attempt to use A's hypocrisy to prove that criticism P is false. This is illogical, since the truth value of a claim does not depend on the speaker. In the former, we are showing that A does not make a good critic, therefore arguing for greater skepticism toward his/her claims.

Inconsistency version

A legitimate use of the inconsistency version might be:

A makes claim P.

A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.

Therefore, A is an inconsistent source of information.

Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy.

Therefore, A is an untrustworthy source of information.

Example:

"John Smith told the police he was at home alone on Friday night, but later said he was with friends at a bar; we can't take what he says about the crime at face value since he lied about his alibi."

See also

• Pot calling the kettle black

• Unclean hands

References

v • d • e Fallacies of relevance General Absurdity • Accident • Ad nauseam • Argument from ignorance • Argument from silence • Argumentum ad populum • Base rate fallacy • Compound question • Fallacy of many questions • Argument to moderation • Naturalistic fallacy • Proof by assertion • Irrelevant conclusion • Special pleading • Straw man • Style over substance fallacy • Two wrongs make a right Appeals to emotion Fear • Flattery • Nature • Novelty • Pity • Ridicule • Repugnance • Spite Genetic fallacies Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) • Appeal to authority • Appeal to motive • Appeal to tradition • Appeal to wealth • Appeal to poverty • Association fallacy • Bulverism • Chronological snobbery • Ipse-dixitism • Poisoning the well • Appeal to etymology • Reductio ad Hitlerum Appeals to consequences Appeal to force • Wishful thinking

---

No comments have been added.

Your name:
City:
Country:	USA UK India Pakistan UAE Saudi Arabia Germany Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burund Cambodia Cameroon Canada Central African Rep Chad Chile China Columbia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic DR Congo Denmark Djiboutil Dominica Dominican Rep Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eq Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Grenadines Guatemala Guinea Bissau Guinea Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Macau Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal Neth Antilles Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Rawanda Romania Russia Sao Tome Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Korea South Africa Spain Sri Lanka St Kitts_Nevis St Lucia Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvala UAE Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Western Samoa Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe
Your comments:
Security check * (Please enter the number into adjoining box)