Tu quoque
 |
Tu quoque (Template:Pron-en, from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. 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. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]
Illegitimate use
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.
You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
- A makes criticism P.
- A is also guilty of P.
- Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
Example:
- "He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel."
Legal aspects
This argument has been unsuccessfully used before the ICTY in Milošević, Kupreškić and Kunarac 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.[2]
Inconsistency version
This form of the argument is as follows:
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, P is false.
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 necessarily prove that P is either true or false.
Example:
- "You say aircraft are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said aircraft fly because of magic."
Legitimate use
Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.
You-too version
A legitimate use of the you-too version might be:
- A makes criticism P.
- A is also guilty of P.
- Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.
Example: "You say that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, but support killing in self-defense; you are either being inconsistent, or you believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified."
Inconsistency version
A legitimate use of the inconsistency version might be:
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, A is an inconsistent source of information.
- Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy.
- Therefore, A is an untrustworthy source of information.
Example:
- "John Smith told the police he was at home alone on Friday night, but later said he was with friends at a bar; we can't take what he says about the crime at face value since he lied about his alibi."
See also
References
- ^ Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque
- ^ Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kupreškić et al.. (January 2000), para. 765; Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kunarac et al.. (February 2001), para. 580; Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in Case Kunarac et al.. (January 2002), para. 87.
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
