Tu quoque
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tu quoque (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 opposite party itself, rather than its positions. [1]
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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."
[edit] 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 airplanes are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said airplanes fly because of magic."
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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."
