Philosophy:Tu quoque
Tu quoque[lower-alpha 1] is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest known use of the term in the English language.[1]
Form and explanation
The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the template (i.e. pattern):[2]
- Person A claims that a statement X is true.
- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
For example:
- Person A: "Smoking is associated with chronic health disorders. You shouldn't smoke."
- Person B: "But you smoke yourself. So much for your argument!"[3]
Person A makes a statement, and Person B reasons that because Person A is being hypocritical, their statement is false.
Similar concepts
A similar concept in politics is that of whataboutism; raising a counteraccusation, often in the form of a larger but unrelated issue. In the Soviet Union in the 1930s, the phrase "and you are lynching Negroes" was often raised against the United States.
See also
- Social:Clean hands – Doctrine used in law to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith
- Philosophy:False equivalence – Logical fallacy of inconsistency
- In pari delicto – Latin term
- Biology:Matthew 7:5
- Philosophy:Psychological projection – Attributing parts of the self to others
- Philosophy:Two wrongs don't make a right – Philosophical expression
- Social:Victor's justice – Pejorative term
Notes
- ↑ /tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] [[language|]] for 'you also'. Also known as the appeal to hypocrisy, "you too" fallacy, "two wrongs" fallacy, "pot calling the kettle black" fallacy, and the "look who's talking" fallacy.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 tu quoque (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, September 2005, http://oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=tu+quoque, retrieved 2016-04-24 (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
- ↑ "Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque". http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html.
- ↑ Walton, Douglas (September 1998) (in en). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-8173-0922-0. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Ad_Hominem_Arguments/-HTQY_b1_84C.
Further reading
- Agassi, Joseph (2008). "Rationality and the tu quoque argument". Inquiry 16 (1–4): 395–406. doi:10.1080/00201747308601691.
- van Eemeren, Frans H.; Houtlosser, Peter (2003). "More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of Tu Quoque". Ossa Conference Archive (University of Windsor). http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA5/papersandcommentaries/93/.
- Govier, Tridy (1980). "Worries About Tu Quoque as a Fallacy". Informal Logic (University of Windsor) 3 (3): 2–4. https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2790/2231.
- Shapiro, Irving David (January 2011). "Fallacies of Logic: Argumentation Cons". Etc 64 (1): 75–86. http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/64-1-shapiro.pdf.
- Marcus, Kenneth L. (2012). "Accusation in a Mirror". Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 43 (2): 357–93. http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol43/iss2/5.
External links
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bg:Ad hominem#Ти също (tu quoque) fr:Argumentum ad hominem#Tu quoque
 |  |
