# Tu Quoque

A tu quoque is a logical fallacy that is a subtype of the ad hominem argument. It is a common and effective rhetorical tactic because its fallacious implications are subtle and dismantling it takes a lot more effort than employing it does.\
[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque)\
\
**Simple Tu Quoque Example**\
p1: Sally says smoking is bad for you\
p2: Paul points out that Sally smokes cigarettes herself\
c: Smoking is not bad for you\
\
In the above reasoning it is fallaciously concluded that because Sally is being a hypocrite, her statement is false. However, it can simultaneously be the case that someone is being hypocritical _and_ that nonetheless the argument they are making is true. Therefore, the arguer's personal hypocrisy is entirely irrelevant, except in an attempt to discredit investing time in discussing with them.\
\
**Subtle Rhetoric**\
Tu quoque's can often be highly subtle, which is part of why they are such a popular fallacious argument, especially in use for propaganda. For example:\
\
Phillipe: You just ran that stop sign!\
Richard: You run stop signs all the time!\
\
The implicit argument here is 'running stop signs isn't unethical for Phillipe to do because Richard does it'. This is fallacious reasoning because the ethics of running stop signs is generally agreed to be about the hazard it presents to others. Phillipe can both be guilty of doing this himself while at the same time be correct in his criticism that Richard ought to not run stop signs.\
\
**Whataboutism Red Herring**\
Tu quoques can also be used as red herrings to distract from the central point, especially in the form of whataboutism. For example:\
\
Phillipe: You just ran that stop sign!\
Richard: What about the texting while driving that you do!\
\
Richard isn't answering the criticism at all in this example, and is attempting to shift attention to the topic of Phillipe's hypocrisy. However, whether Phillipe is hypocritical or not (in almost all ethical frameworks) has nothing to do with whether running stop signs is unethical. Therefore, attempting to shift the attention here is a distraction tactic, also known as a red herring, to attempt to avoid the argument entirely.\
\
This is usually done when the distractor knows that they have no valid counter-argument, especially when them losing the argument would conclude that they ought to change their behaviour. It can and has been used by large organizations such as governments. Whataboutism was popularized by criticisms between the United States and the Soviet Union, and is popularly used to this day by the Communist Party of China.\
\
The rational conclusion (in most ethical frameworks) to this example is that _both parties should change their behaviours_. Phillipe should stop running stop signs, and Richard should stop texting while driving.\
\
**Offence of Judgment**\
In some cases, pointing out hypocrisy can be an argument to not be judgmental of whether someone is entirely good or bad. A famous phrase with this sentiment is 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. This is perhaps the central point that many arguers who use tu quoque are in disagreement with their interlocutors on. But allowing being offended by this to motivate them to use the tu quoque logical fallacy instead of being direct about this is unproductive.\
\
It is generally accepted as true that we should not judge someone based on only one or a few of their actions (or even argued that we should _never_ judge whether someone is wholly good or bad), since there are many aspects that would need to be known to theoretically determine whether someone is good, and many of these aspects may be unknowable.\
\
However, in most cases where a tu quoque fallacy is used, the other arguer is not arguing about whether they are a good or bad person (although they of course can be). Instead, usually the other arguer is arguing to change a specific behaviour. The arguer using the tu quoque fallacy may simply be feeling defensive because they are the subject of criticism. And understandably so, because if we are consistently wrong about something then our credibility would be very poor and other people would have little reason to work with us. Nonetheless, sometimes we have to accept when we are wrong if we want to move forward.

## Ad Hominem

Tu quoque us a type of ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments have gained a generally poor online reputation to be nearly synonymous with name-calling, but it's important to note that they aren't in themselves always fallacious, nor always unproductive. While ad hominems often are unproductive, they can also be genuinely helpful. For example:\
\
p1: John is arguing that climate change isn't real and that the overwhelming evidence of it is part of a grand, international conspiracy\
p2: John is known to consistently make arguments that they don't even believe themselves in the interests of provoking emotional reactions, wasting people's time, and drowning out other conversation (colloquially known as trolling) - they have made many absurd arguments like this before, and when engaged with they give low-quality replies such as name-calling instead of engaging productively\
c: The time it takes engaging in argument with John may be better spent elsewhere, since nothing productive is likely to come of it\
\
What sets this ad hominem apart from fallacious ad hominems is that nothing about this reasoning speaks to whether _John's claim_ is true. Whether an argument/claim is true is separate from the arguer's credibility, which is the main illogical aspect to many ad hominems, including tu quoques and whataboutisms.

## In a Vegan Context

A common and fallacious counter-argument to veganism is 'vegans use computers that are manufactured using third-world exploitation'. This is a type of implicit tu quoque argument. The arguer is implying the following reasoning:\
\
p1: Vegans argue that causing needless harm is unethical\
p2: Vegans cause harm through purchasing technology manufactured with exploitation\
c: Causing needless harm isn't necessarily unethical\
\
The above reasoning is fallacious for several reasons:\
1\. **Practicability**. Veganism is defined by what is needless vs practicable. Veganism is a drastic reduction of harm and rights violations - not perfection. In the case of animal agriculture, vegans are doing what is _practicable_ to not cause harm, not causing no harm at all. Everything has an impact.\
2\. **False claim**. This argument makes that claim that vegans are being hypocritical. However, this may not be the case. When it comes to causing harm, a vegan may avoid it as far as practicable in both the animal agriculture context and the exploitative manufacturing context. A lot about modern life requires devices like computers, so it is not practicable to completely boycott all technology. However, some companies have less exploitative supply chains than others.\
3\. **Tu quoque**. As demonstrated at the top of this article, whether someone is hypocritical or not is separate from whether their argument is true or not, which makes the conclusion in this reasoning a non sequitur. \
4\. **Intentional ambiguity**. This argument cleverly attacks 'vegans' which is a non-specific claim. When challenged, the arguer can claim that they were referring to a specific vegan who was genuinely doing something unethical. One can find in all groups that grow large enough an individual who makes a poor example of the group or of the philosophy in practice.\
\
The above reasoning is also a type of **defeatist** reasoning. It is essentially reasoning 'we can't be perfect, _so we shouldn't bother_', whereas vegans reason/argue 'we can't be perfect, _but we should do our best_'. Typically only the vegan argument is consistent with most people's normative ethical framework. And while sometimes defeatism can save resources when a goal is genuinely unachievable, veganism can be demonstrated to not be futile as it has measurable results.

{% content-ref url="../../welcome/efficacy" %}
[efficacy](../../welcome/efficacy)
{% endcontent-ref %}

{% content-ref url="../../welcome/efficacy/accelerating-popularity" %}
[accelerating-popularity](../../welcome/efficacy/accelerating-popularity)
{% endcontent-ref %}

The above reasoning is also a form of **whataboutism**, which as mentioned at the top of this article is irrational to take as a reason to ignore both parties' behaviours and instead should be taken to mean that _both parties should change their behaviours._
