Tu Quoque - Ad Hominem Fallacy That You Did It Too!

Tu Quoque - Ad Hominem Fallacy That You Did It Too! Fallacy Name:Tu Quoque Alternative Names:You did it too! Fallacy Category:Fallacies of Relevance Ad Hominem Arguments Explanation of the Tu Quoque The Tu Quoque fallacy is a form of the ad hominem fallacy which does not attack a person for random, unrelated things; instead, it is an attack on someone for a perceived fault in how they have presented their case. This form of the ad hominem is called tu quoque, which means you too because it typically occurs when a person is attacked for doing what they are arguing against. Examples and Discussion of the Tu Quoque Usually, you will see the Tu Quoque fallacy used whenever an argument has gotten very heated, and the possibility of civil, productive discussion may have already been lost: 1. So what if I used an ad hominem? You insulted me earlier.2. How can you tell me not to experiment with drugs when you did the same thing as a teenager? As you can see, the arguers in these examples are trying to make the case that what they have done is justified by insisting that the other person has also done the same. If the act or statement in question was so bad, why did they do it? This fallacy is sometimes referred to as two wrongs dont make a right because of the implication that a second wrong makes everything alright. Even if a person is completely hypocritical, though, this does not mean that their advice is not sound and should not be followed. Tu Quoque and Sincerity This fallacy can also occur more subtly, for example, by attacking a persons sincerity or consistency: 3. Why should I take your arguments for vegetarianism seriously when you would accept a transfusion of blood that has been tested using animal products, or accept medication that has been tested using animals? The reason this example qualifies as a tu quoque fallacy is because the argument reaches the conclusion I dont have to accept your conclusion from the premise you dont really accept your conclusion either. This looks like an argument against the consistency of an argument for vegetarianism, but it is actually an argument against a person arguing for vegetarianism. Just because a person fails to be consistent does not mean that the position they are arguing for is not sound. You can be inconsistent in following a sound principle and consistent in following an unsound principle. This is why the consistency with which a person follows what they are arguing for is irrelevant when it comes to the validity of their position. Of course, this doesnt mean that it is illegitimate to point out such glaring inconsistencies. After all, if a person does not follow their own advice, it may be that they dont believe it themselves - and if that is the case, you can ask why they want you to follow it. Or maybe they dont understand what they are saying - and if they dont understand it, it is unlikely that they will be able to present an effective defense for it. You Would Do It Too A closely related tactic is to move from saying you did it, too to saying you would do it too if you had the chance. In this way, people can construct arguments like: 4. The leaders of that country are insane, and would attack us if they had the chance - so we should attack them first and thus protect ourselves.5. Christians would persecute us again if they were given the opportunity, so whats wrong with persecuting them first? This is fallacious for the same reason that the usual tu quoque is a fallacy - it doesnt matter what someone else would do if they had the chance because that alone doesnt make it right for you to do it yourself.