Last week I looked at the Straw Man Fallacy, today I want to explore the tu quoque fallacy. In latin tu quoque (too kwo-kwee) means “you too”; in fact, the phrase “you did it too” is a good, succinct account of this fallacy. A tu quoque occurs when one rebuts a particular criticism of one’s own position by showing one’s opponent’s position is subject to the same criticism; this is done instead of showing that one’s own position is not susceptible to the criticism.
A good example is the following segment of a CNN Interview with Osama Bin Laden,
Q: Now, the United States government says that you are still funding military training camps here in Afghanistan for militant, Islamic fighters and that you’re a sponsor of international terrorism. … Are these accusations true? …
Osama Bin Laden: … At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his right, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army at the White House as a political leader, while woe, all woe is the Muslims if they cry out for their rights. Wherever we look, we find the US as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. These bombs were rather thrown at entire nations, including women, children and elderly people and up to this day the traces of those bombs remain in Japan. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food or medicine. So, there is no base for what the US says and this saying does not affect us.[1]
Here Bin Laden was asked to respond to the claim that he has been sponsoring terrorism and training Islamic militants. Bin Laden argued that there is no basis for this claim because the United States supports terrorism and has itself engaged in activities which can justifiably be labelled ‘terrorist’. Bin Laden’s comments about the United States may or may not be true but either way it would not answer the questions as to whether Bin Laden has been sponsoring terrorism. It is possible, after all, that both Bin Laden and the United States sponsor and engage in terrorism.
The Difference Between a Tu Quoque and Internal Criticism
It is important to distinguish this argument from another similar argument, which I will call internal criticism. Internal criticism occurs when one argues against an opponent’s position by noting that one proposition the opponent holds conflicts with another proposition he holds.
An example is Alvin Plantinga’s famous argument in God and other Minds. In this book Plantinga looks at the question of whether belief in the existence of God is irrational because it cannot be proven to be true with a non-circular argument. In the first half of the book Plantinga examines various purported proofs for Gods existence and argues they all fail. He concludes that no proof for God’s existence has been offered. In the last three chapters, he asks a different question: can belief in the existence of other minds – other rational people with thoughts and sensations – be proven with a non-circular argument? Plantinga examines the purported proofs of the existence of other minds and argues they all also fail for similar reasons. He concludes that one cannot reject belief in God on the basis of lack of proof, unless one also rejects the existence of other people.
On the face of it Plantinga’s position might appear to be a tu quoque; instead of showing that belief in God can be proven he ignores this question and argues that belief in other minds cannot. It is not a tu quoque. What Plantinga is doing is offering an internal criticism of the sceptic’s position. The sceptic maintains that belief in the existence of something is unjustified unless it can be proven to exist. However the sceptic also believes that other people exist. The point is that these two beliefs are inconsistent and one cannot rationally hold both. It follows, then, that one of them must be abandoned.
This is different from a tu quoque. In a tu quoque I reject an objection to my belief by noting yours has the same flaw. This involves accepting the property in question is a flaw and trying to avoid the issue by noting that you did it too. In internal criticism I call into question whether you can rationally put forward one of your beliefs given that it contradicts another of your beliefs. I may hold the beliefs in question or I may not but the point is that you do hold them and doing so is inconsistent. The difference is subtle but important.
Two Wrongs don’t make a Right
A tu quoque is, in many ways, the logical version of the mistake of thinking “two wrongs make a right”. One thinks of the sullen 10 year old caught doing something naughty who complains “but my sister did it too” or the child who swears says “but mum, I have heard you swear sometimes”. These things may well be the case, perhaps the sister did also commit the offence, perhaps the mother has used language they should not have but the fact the sister and mother are wrong to do x does not mean the child is right to do x.
Of course, if the mother had, when she swore, stated she believed swearing was okay then the child’s objection might be able to be construed as a form of internal criticism. He could be saying “Mum you’re punishing me for doing x but you said x is okay; isn’t this inconsistent of you? If swearing is okay I have done nothing wrong and if I have done something wrong then swearing is not ok; so which is it?” In this case the child would have a point; the mother is being inconsistent. If the mother is to have a just reason to chastise the child she needs to give up her belief that swearing is wrong. Otherwise her objection to the child’s behaviour is irrational.
So in summation, you cannot rationally show that your position is defensible by noting that other positions share indefensible flaws with your own.
[1] I got this example from Fallacy Files.
Every Friday I publish another post in my Fallacy Friday series. To navigate the whole series, use the Fallacy Friday tag.
Apologetics 315 are producing an audio version of this series, also released every Friday. Subscribe to the Fallacy Friday Podcast using:
• RSS Feed, or
• Via iTunes, or
• one-click to your feed-reader
Tags: Fallacy Friday · Osama Bin Laden · Tu Quoque25 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
“Takes one to know one” was a good come back to an insult if nothing came to mind in the school yard…
I always liked “no, you!” This allowed one to deny the charge and turn it back on the objector in just two words. 😉
@ Randy
Maybe we should teach our kids logical fallacies at an early age to use in combat school yard bullies… it’s underhand but better than a black eye.
As I’m the one who committed the fallacy that seems to have provided the reason for the post let me add some food for thought.
You’re obviously quite right – I committed a fallacy that invalidated the point that I was trying to make.
However, I think you missed the underlying point.
Christianity holds itself apart from all other faiths – it states that it is unique in that it is correct, yet it behaves just like all the rest.
It makes the same mistakes as other faiths and those of no faith, but all the while repeats the mantra “we’re different, we’re not like the others.”
So, point to you, but was it really worth winning ? Perhaps you think it was.
Paul, what do you mean when you say Christianity makes all the same mistakes? Do you mean mistakes of behavior? If that is what you mean, what follows is at worst hypocrisy–which most, if not all, Christians will readily accept. Sadly, but truly, none of us are perfect. If that is not what you meant, I will look out for your next comment.
Matt, I followed your post till this comment If the mother is to have a just reason to chastise the child she needs to give up her belief that swearing is wrong. Otherwise her objection to the child’s behaviour is irrational.
Did you mean to say “okay” here? Or did you mean the mother needs to have a different reason to chastise the child, swearing not being an adequate reason?
Paul, Christianity claims to be true. That’s what differentiates us from other religions who (in our view) have a smaller chunk of the truth pie.
What does Christianity claim about human beings? Whilst atheists believe that man is ascended pond scum, in a very real sense Christianity teaches that man is a fallen god, incomparable in potential, yet fatally flawed. Even the best of us war with the desire to serve ourselves.
You’ve heard the saying “nobody’s perfect.” From an atheistic perspective that’s nonsense. There is no “perfect” for people to aspire to. What is is. Christianity teaches that there is a perfect, and we’re not it.
You point to the times Christians act like other people, and suggest that it proves Christianity false. I look at the same information and suggest that proves Christianity true.
Jason I hate to have to jump in here but Christians do not believe they are fallen gods but fallen created beings who fell because they desired to become like god… Christianity sets itself apart with the sacrifice of Jesus and the promise of salvation through grace and not by works alone. All religions think they have the answer so I don’t think that’s a point of difference.
I think Osama’s response may be an internal criticism – ie. the USA claims that their acts of violence are legitimate – and since they resemble Osama;s in all ways – they can not consistently condemn his acts of violence.
If the Christ you believe in leads you to view other humans as lesser beings, then you are a follower of the Anti-Christ. Even Jesus will not claim to be Christian, but will only proclaim the glory of the Father.
The worth of a soul will only be measured by how much it has loved, nothing more, nothing less.
Woe to those who have taken the widow’s mite and built castles and empires in His name. They have incurred a great accountability. Their suffering will be unending.
People tell me not to use the Tu Quoque fallacy. But their objections carry no water. After all, they use it all the time!
A rather annoying example was Laura Ingraham (Fox News) screeching at Christopher Hitchens when he criticised Sarah Palin.
G.W. Markle’s (spammy) comment suggests to me that perhaps the next Fallacy Friday could address the common line thrown at Christians : “it is wrong to judge others”.
If that were true perhaps we should disband the police, justice system and Parliament?
@ Jason:
“Paul, Christianity claims to be true. That’s what differentiates us from other religions who (in our view) have a smaller chunk of the truth pie.”
There is a “pie of truth” ? 🙂
“You point to the times Christians act like other people, and suggest that it proves Christianity false. I look at the same information and suggest that proves Christianity true.”
No, and I’m not sure why Christians continue to make that assumption.
What I’m trying to find out is why all of the faiths are wrong.
If morality or logic, reason, truth are not solely based on Christianity, and it’s ok to be a Christian and a hypocrite then what’s the point in being a Christian and not following some other faith ?
Should I consider Scientology ? I know it’s a bit expensive but they could be right too.
Perhaps they have a bigger slice of the truth pie. 😉
@ Glenn
“People tell me not to use the Tu Quoque fallacy. But their objections carry no water. After all, they use it all the time!”
Ker-ching !
as a comedy routine it still needs work.
” it’s ok to be a Christian and a hypocrite”
Paul, I wonder if you could perhaps point to where a Christian has said this here (or anywhere, actually).
Cheers.
@ Glenn:
“Paul, I wonder if you could perhaps point to where a Christian has said this here (or anywhere, actually).”
Well, if one can’t use the ‘you too’ fallacy to counter a statement made by a Christian advocate what is the only observation left to make ?
It would seem to be that the statement, although valid, is nonetheless hypocritical, and Christian.
I’m happy to be corrected Glenn. I obviously don’t stride the same intellectual plains that you do so I could be misunderstanding some things.
Paul, the fact that “you did that bad thing too” is a fallacious argument is not the same as saying that the bad thing is really OK after all.
You get that, right?
@ Glenn:
“Paul, the fact that “you did that bad thing too” is a fallacious argument is not the same as saying that the bad thing is really OK after all.
You get that, right?”
Glenn, you’re missing the point that I’m trying to make so I’ll spell it out.
You say X is wrong
You also do X
I point that out
You state that that does not detract from the truth of X (tu quoque)
I agree
But the action of
Saying X is wrong and doing X still makes you a hypocrite.
When the tuquoque fallacy is committed I would suggest that it is not simply that it’s proponent is arguing that the statement is logically invalid (which obviously it is not), but that the statement is hypocritical (which it is).
As I’ve said before, I may be misunderstanding how to frame an argument properly (I used to be a local legislator and therefore, by definition, stupid) so feel free to put me right.
John, context. Man was created as God’s representative on the Earth, in his image, bearing delegated authority, therefore in a sense he was indeed a god (note the little “g”).
Paul,
“What I’m trying to find out is why all of the faiths are wrong.”
They’re not all wrong, Christianity isn’t .
A copy paste from a blog post I wrote a while back based on an expansion of the Kalam argument.
This sounds like US politics, if you show that 10 Democrats are corrupt, you typical liberal will point to some Republican that’s corrupt, and will dodge saying anything negative about their beloved corrupt Democrats.
@ Jason:
“They’re not all wrong, Christianity isn’t .”
but, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, you would say that wouldn’t you ?
As someone who isn’t a Muslim, a Zoroastrian, Jew, Scientologist or whatever – why should I accept the word of Christian about Christianity and not also accept the word of a Muslim about Islam or a Jew about Judaism ?
If a Christian raises a valid criticism of Islam, okey-dokey, but how does that validate Christianity as being any better than Islam if Christianity is doing the same thing ?
It’s not a question of fallaciously arguing two wrongs making a rights but merely pointing out that there are, in fact, two wrongs.
Hi Matt,
Thank you very much for the posting- i like Friday fallacy post
God bless,
“As someone who isn’t a Muslim, a Zoroastrian, Jew, Scientologist or whatever – why should I accept the word of Christian about Christianity and not also accept the word of a Muslim about Islam or a Jew about Judaism ?
If a Christian raises a valid criticism of Islam, okey-dokey, but how does that validate Christianity as being any better than Islam if Christianity is doing the same thing ?
It’s not a question of fallaciously arguing two wrongs making a rights but merely pointing out that there are, in fact, two wrongs.
Paul with respect, when I discussed arguments Christians had made against Naturalism your response was to repeatedly ask “whats the alternative to naturalism”? you seemed to think one could ignore a criticism of your own position until they had developed an argument for an alternative.
Can you explain to me why when its naturalism a person needs to offer an alternative?
Moreover, if your going to take the line that Christians need to offer an argument for accepting Christianity over all alternatives, then why can’t Christians demand that atheist demonstrate there particular secular perspective on the world is superior to all alternatives secular and religious?
Fallacy Friday: Tu Quoque (But you did it too!)…
The Fallacy Friday Podcast is the weekly audio version of Matthew Flannagan’s Fallacy Friday posts over at the MandM blog. Apologetics315 is producing the audio version, released every Friday as well. Today’s episode: Tu Quoque (But you did it too!) …