(also known as the “Look Who’s Talking” Fallacy)
This fallacy occurs when, instead of responding to criticism or examining the validity of an argument, a person points to the opponent’s contradictory behaviour or words in an attempt to undermine the criticism or argument.
Definition:
Tu quoque is a reasoning error in which, rather than addressing the main issue, reference is made to the opponent’s inconsistency or similar behaviour in order to divert attention from the actual argument. This approach relies on personal attack and highlighting the opponent’s failure to adhere to the same standards. Although the inconsistency may be real, its existence does not in itself invalidate a person’s claim or argument.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
1. Person A makes a claim or raises a criticism.
2. Person B, instead of addressing the main issue, points out contradictory behaviour or words by Person A.
3. It is concluded that Person A’s claim is invalid.
Examples from real life:
1. Politics:
“A representative urges the public to save energy but drives several fuel-guzzling personal cars.”
Here, it should be noted that even if their behaviour is inconsistent, this does not make energy conservation a bad idea.
2. Public health:
“A doctor advises patients not to smoke, but smokes themselves.”
Here, it should be noted that although the doctor’s behaviour is unhealthy, the advice to quit smoking remains valid.
3. Education:
“A teacher tells students to arrive on time for class, but sometimes arrives late themselves.”
Here, it should be noted that the teacher’s lateness does not mean punctuality is unimportant.
4. Personal relationships:
“A friend asks you not to lie, but sometimes lies themselves.”
Here, it should be noted that even if they are not always truthful, the advice remains sound.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
● It diverts the discussion from evaluating the argument to scrutinising the individual’s character or behaviour.
● It can be used to discredit valid advice or legitimate criticism.
● It allows the personal faults of the claimant to be used as an excuse to ignore sound principles they promote, even if they do not fully adhere to them themselves.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
Ask:
– Does the opponent’s inconsistency or similar behaviour genuinely undermine the validity of the argument?
– Could the argument or advice still be correct even if the speaker does not follow it?
A suitable response might be: “Perhaps they have also made mistakes in this area, but let’s examine separately whether their argument or advice is correct.”
Conclusion:
The tu quoque fallacy, by focusing on the speaker’s personal inconsistencies in words or actions rather than the argument itself, derails discussion and leads to the hasty dismissal of claims. To avoid it, one should distinguish between the logical validity of an argument and the personal conduct of its proponent.