Tu quoque
Tu quoque is the fallacy of answering a criticism by pointing out that the critic does the same thing. The Latin means "you also", the English name is the appeal to hypocrisy, and yes, it is a logical fallacy: it is a subtype of ad hominem, because it replies to the arguer's conduct instead of to the argument, and the original claim is left standing exactly where it was.
Grain of Salt names moves, not people. The examples below come from workshops, kitchens and building sites, because the fallacy is easiest to see when nobody has a stake in who wins.
What tu quoque is
Tu quoque converts a claim into a contest of character. A criticism is made, the person criticized finds an instance of the critic doing the same thing, and the instance is offered as though it settled the matter. It settles nothing, because a claim's truth does not depend on who says it. If the scaffolding is unsafe, it is unsafe whether or not the inspector's own scaffolding is worse.
Lists of logical fallacies file it as one of 3 named branches of ad hominem, and the three differ in what they attack: the abusive form attacks the arguer's character, the circumstantial form attacks the arguer's interests, and tu quoque attacks the arguer's consistency. Only the third requires the critic to have made a specific charge first, which is why tu quoque always appears second in a conversation and never opens one.
The reply in one sentence, and the two parts it always has
Every tu quoque has two parts: an accusation of inconsistency that is often true, and a conclusion about the original claim that does not follow from it. Separating the parts is the whole skill, because the first part can be entirely justified while the second is worthless.
A site foreman tells an electrician that leaving a trailing cable across a walkway is a trip hazard. The electrician answers that the foreman left a stack of boards in the same corridor all last week. The boards may well have been a hazard, and the foreman may well be a hypocrite. Neither fact moves the cable. The cable is still across the walkway and it is still a hazard, and everything the electrician said was true and irrelevant in the same breath.
The forms the appeal to hypocrisy takes
The appeal takes 4 forms, ordered here from the most obvious to the one that passes unchallenged in most rooms.
- The direct return. The same charge is thrown back unchanged: you do it too.
- The historical return. An older instance is produced, often years old, often from a different context.
- The associative return. Not the critic but the critic's employer, colleague or side is shown to have done it.
- The pre-emptive return. The speaker heads off criticism in advance by naming the critic's record before the criticism is made.
All four share one tell. After the reply, the original claim has not been discussed at all: not conceded, not denied, not tested. The conversation now has a new subject and the old one was never closed.
A worked example, and the repair
Here is the raw exchange, from a restaurant review. The reviewer writes that the kitchen sends out cold soup. The owner replies that the reviewer's own cafe was rated poorly for slow service two years ago. Notice what the reply achieves: it wins the room, it is factually accurate, and it tells the reader nothing whatsoever about the temperature of the soup.
The repair keeps the accusation and adds the answer it was standing in for: "Our soup goes out at the temperature we hold it at, which is checked twice a service, and the reviewer visited during a twenty minute stretch when the pass was being replaced. Separately, I do not think the review is written in good faith." That version does two jobs in the right order. It answers the claim, and only then raises the critic's standing, as a separate point that is allowed to be weaker.
What tu quoque is confused with
4 moves sit near tu quoque and only one of them is the same fallacy under a different name.
| Move | What it targets | How to tell it apart |
|---|---|---|
| Tu quoque | The critic's consistency | It answers a charge by returning it |
| Abusive ad hominem | The arguer's character | It needs no prior charge and can open a conversation |
| Whataboutery | The agenda | It raises a different issue rather than returning the same one, so it is a change of subject rather than a mirror |
| Non sequitur | The link itself | Tu quoque is one specific way for a conclusion not to follow; most non sequiturs involve no accusation at all |
Whataboutery is the closest neighbor and the most useful contrast. Tu quoque says you do this too. Whataboutery says but what about that other thing, which is worse. The first at least stays on the same charge. Confirmation bias is what makes either one feel decisive: once a critic has been shown to be inconsistent, everything else they say starts to look like special pleading, and the claim they made goes unexamined for good.
When pointing at the critic is not a fault
Pointing at a critic's own conduct is legitimate in 3 situations, and in all three the target has changed from the claim to something else that was genuinely at issue.
- Assess credibility, if the critic is being offered as a witness rather than as an arguer. Someone's record is evidence about their testimony, though never about a claim that can be checked directly.
- Challenge a standard, if the question on the table is whether a rule should be enforced rather than whether it was broken. Selective enforcement is a real complaint and it belongs to a different argument.
- Test sincerity, if a person's own behavior is evidence about what they actually believe. A consultant who ignores their own procedure has told you something about the procedure, and nothing about whether it works.
The dividing line is simple to state. Inconsistency is evidence about a person. It is never evidence about a claim that anyone could go and check for themselves.
The test to run when a criticism comes back at you
Ask 4 questions before accepting that a charge has been answered.
- Ask whether the original claim has been addressed at all, or only its author.
- Ask what would change about the claim if the critic were a saint, and note the fallacy if the answer is nothing.
- Ask whether the reply concedes the charge without saying so, which the direct return almost always does.
- Ask what the strongest version of the criticism is with the critic removed, and answer that instead.
Pronunciation, and how to respond without committing a fallacy yourself
Tu quoque is read in English as too KWOH-kwee, and in a classical Latin reading as too KWO-kweh. Both are heard in seminars and neither is wrong. The phrase is often confused with "Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi", a Latin form of the line Shakespeare gives Caesar in Julius Caesar as "Et tu, Brute". That line shares two words with the fallacy and nothing else: it expresses betrayal, not bad reasoning, and no argument is being made in it at all.
Responding well takes 3 steps in a fixed order. Concede the personal charge immediately and briefly, because arguing it is what the fallacy wants. Restate the original claim in one sentence. Then ask for an answer to that sentence. The reason for the order is that a defended hypocrisy accusation grows, while a conceded one dies, and the claim you actually care about is still sitting there once it does.