F037 • Informal - Relevance
Also known as: Appeal to Hypocrisy, You Too Fallacy, Whataboutism, Two Wrongs Make a Right
When someone tells us we should change something, one of the fastest ways to make the discomfort go away is to point out that they do not follow their own advice. 'You do it too' feels like a complete answer. It feels like it neutralizes the argument. But whether the person practices what they preach is a question about the person -- and what they are saying might still be true regardless.
Loading examples...
Hypocrisy genuinely bothers us, and for understandable reasons. If someone does not act on their own beliefs, it raises real questions about their sincerity and their authority to make demands. These instincts are socially useful -- they help us detect people who are posturing rather than reasoning in good faith. But there is a gap between 'this person is inconsistent' and 'this person's argument is wrong.' A doctor who smokes can still be right that smoking is harmful. A parent who struggled with discipline can still give sound advice about parenting. The tu quoque feels like it settles the argument because it settles a social question -- the speaker's standing -- and we often confuse the two. The argument's validity has not changed. Only our willingness to hear it has.
| Pointing out hypocrisy is relevant when assessing someone's credibility to make moral demands or when their inconsistency reveals they don't actually believe their own argument. |
| For example, if someone argues a policy is catastrophic but doesn't act as if they believe it, that inconsistency may legitimately undermine their credibility. |
| However, it doesn't make their logical arguments invalid. |
| You find yourself responding to an argument by pointing to the arguer's behavior rather than engaging with what they said |
| The word 'hypocrite' or the phrase 'you do it too' feels like it closes the conversation, and you notice it has replaced any engagement with the actual substance |
| You feel a rush of satisfaction when you find that the person giving advice does not follow it, and that satisfaction feels like it settles the question |
| You catch yourself deflecting feedback by pointing to the feedback-giver's own shortcomings, even when you know the feedback has merit |
| Thinking that hypocrisy is never relevant -- it genuinely matters for assessing someone's moral authority to make demands, their sincerity, and sometimes even whether they truly believe their own position. The fallacy is in using it to dismiss the argument, not in noticing it. |
| Confusing tu quoque with legitimate questions about consistency -- if someone argues that a rule should be universal and then exempts themselves, that inconsistency is directly relevant to the argument about universality |
| Not recognizing that tu quoque can be subtle: comparing your behavior to others' behavior rather than explicitly saying 'you too' is still the same pattern |
| Tu Quoque |
|---|
| Dismissing someone's argument by pointing out that they themselves don't follow their own advice or that they've acted inconsistently with their stated position. |
| The validity of an argument is independent of whether the person making it practices what they preach. A hypocrite can still make a logically sound argument. The person's inconsistency may reflect poorly on their character, but it doesn't make their reasoning or evidence incorrect. This is essentially an ad hominem attack based on inconsistency rather than character flaws. |
Hover to see definition, click to view full details