Tu quoque ( /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3]
Contents |
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.
This form of the argument, familiar from everyday disagreements, is as follows:
Examples:
Even judged by the one target the [Conservative Party] chancellor [Osborne] had set himself - getting the deficit down - he was "failing", said Mr Balls [Labour Party]. "Compared to his plans of a year ago he is now planning to borrowing a staggering £158bn more." ... But Mr Osborne derided his opposite number. "As far as I can tell the shadow chancellor complains that we are borrowing too much and then proposes that we borrow even more!" he said. "There is not a single credible political party in the entirety of Europe that is proposing more spending, apart from the Labour Party." (Guardian, 29/11/11).
This form of the argument is as follows:
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 prove that P is false.
Examples:
The legitimate form of the argument is as follows:
The difference from the illegitimate form is that the latter would try to dismiss P along with A. It is illegitimate to conflate the logically separate questions of whether P is a valid criticism and whether A is a good role model.
Examples of legitimate use:
In common law, a legal maxim exists stating a person cannot approach the courts of equity with unclean hands. If there is a nexus between the applicant's wrongful act and the rights he wishes to enforce, the court may not grant the applicant's request. To illustrate, if a landlord breaches a term in a tenancy agreement and then issues an eviction notice to the tenant for the tenant's breach of a term in the tenancy agreement, the law might permit the tenant to stay because of the landlord's own breach of the tenancy agreement.
This argument has been unsuccessfully used before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in several cases when the accused tried to justify their crimes by insisting that the opposing side had also committed such crimes. However, the argument tu quoque, from the basis of international humanitarian law is completely irrelevant, as the ICTY has stated in these cases.[4][5][6][7]
Historically, however, at the Nuremberg trial of Karl Dönitz, tu quoque was accepted not as a defense to the crime itself, or to the prosecution proceedings, but as a defense only to punishment.[8] At the Dachau trials, Otto Skorzeny and officers of Panzer Brigade 150 successfully used tu quoque evidence to be acquitted of violating the laws of war by using American uniforms to infiltrate Allied lines in the false flag Operation Greif in the Battle of the Bulge. Evidence was introduced that the Allies themselves had on at least one occasion worn German uniforms, demonstrating that the prosecution was not clean with regards to this particular crime.