Skip to main content
Category: Fallacies
Type: Logical Fallacy
Origin: Latin for “you too” or “you also,” from the Greek “kai su” in Aristotelian rhetoric
Also known as: Appeal to Hypocrisy, Two Wrongs Make a Right, Whataboutism
Quick Answer — The Tu Quoque fallacy occurs when someone responds to criticism by pointing out that the person making the criticism is also guilty of the same behavior. Rather than addressing the merits of the argument, the responder shifts focus to the critic’s alleged hypocrisy. This is a diversionary tactic that avoids engaging with the actual issue while creating the appearance of a valid counter-argument.

​
What is the Tu Quoque?

The Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy where someone deflects criticism by pointing out that the person criticizing them is also guilty of the same flaw or behavior. The Latin phrase “tu quoque” literally translates to “you too” or “you also.” The fundamental error here is assuming that criticism is invalid simply because the person making it doesn’t practice what they preach—the truth of a claim doesn’t depend on who makes it.
“The fact that a hypocrite makes a claim does not make the claim false. A broken clock is right twice a day, and even a flawed person can sometimes say something true.”
The key characteristic of this fallacy is deflection rather than engagement. When someone uses tu quoque, they avoid addressing the substance of the criticism by shifting attention to the critic’s behavior. This is particularly effective because it triggers an emotional response—the accused feels unjustly attacked and the accuser becomes defensive about their own conduct, derailing the original discussion.

​
Tu Quoque in 3 Depths

  • Beginner: When someone says “How can you tell me to eat healthy? I saw you eating pizza last week”—that’s tu quoque. Whether or not the critic eats pizza has no bearing on whether the advice about healthy eating is sound.
  • Practitioner: Recognize tu quoque in political discourse. When one politician criticizes another’s policy, and the response is “but you supported similar policies in the past,” the original policy debate gets derailed.
  • Advanced: Understand that tu quoque is a form of ad hominem attack—specifically, circumstantial ad hominem. The fallacy is not in noting genuine hypocrisy but in using it as a complete substitute for addressing the argument’s merits.

​
Origin

The concept of tu quoque has been recognized since classical antiquity. Aristotle discussed this form of argument in his work “Sophistical Refutations,” identifying it as a form of irrelevant objection. The Latin terminology “tu quoque” became standard in medieval and modern logic to describe this specific rhetorical tactic. This fallacy gained particular prominence in political and moral debates, where accusations of hypocrisy are common. In the modern era, the term “whataboutism” has emerged to describe the Russian and Soviet diplomatic practice of responding to accusations by pointing out similar actions by the accuser—a contemporary manifestation of tu quoque in international relations.

​
Key Points

1

Attacks the Critic, Not the Argument

The core error is substituting character assassination for argument analysis. Whether the critic is hypocritical doesn’t affect whether the original argument is valid.
2

Shifts Focus from Substance to Character

Tu quoque derails productive discussion by making the discussion about the accuser rather than the issue. This is a rhetorical escape hatch rather than genuine engagement.
3

Often Prevents Genuine Dialogue

When accusations of hypocrisy dominate, the opportunity to examine the actual issue is lost. Both parties become focused on defending themselves rather than seeking truth.
4

Confuses Moral Authority with Factual Validity

A claim can be true even if the person making it doesn’t live by it. The advice “don’t smoke” is true whether or not the person giving it smokes.

​
Applications

Political Debates

Politicians frequently use tu quoque to deflect criticism. When criticized for a policy position, the response often points to the critic’s past positions, avoiding engagement with the current issue.

Social Media Disputes

Online arguments often devolve into mutual accusations of hypocrisy. “You criticize others for that but you do it too” ends discussion rather than advancing it.

Parenting and Relationships

Parents may use tu quoque when children point out inconsistencies—“You’re always telling me not to lie, but I saw you lie to Grandma.” This deflects rather than addresses the underlying issue.

Workplace Conflicts

Colleagues may respond to feedback by pointing out the feedback-giver’s similar shortcomings, avoiding the actual substance of the feedback.

​
Case Study

In the 2012 United States presidential campaign, a debate emerged about tax returns and transparency. When one candidate called for his opponent to release decades of tax returns, the response was to point out that the first candidate had also not released his returns in the past. The discussion became centered on who was more hypocritical rather than on the actual substantive issue of what tax returns would reveal and why transparency matters in presidential candidates. This illustrates how tu quoque derails productive discourse. The original question—whether candidate transparency is important and what releasing returns would demonstrate—never received genuine examination. Both campaigns became focused on scoring points about the other’s inconsistencies, leaving voters without substantive engagement on the merits. The lesson: when evaluating any claim, examine the claim on its own merits, regardless of who makes it. Hypocrisy may be morally relevant in some contexts, but it doesn’t invalidate the factual content of an argument.

​
Boundaries and Failure Modes

The Tu Quoque can be difficult to identify because sometimes genuine hypocrisy is relevant to the discussion. First, when someone’s behavior directly undermines their claimed motivations, this can be relevant. If someone claims to care about environmental issues while actively opposing environmental policies, their claimed priorities are legitimately called into question. Second, credibility and expertise do matter in some contexts. If someone is arguing for a position they personally contradict, understanding their motivation becomes relevant—not to dismiss the argument but to add appropriate scrutiny. Third, the distinction between dismissing an argument and adding context matters. Pointing out that someone benefits from a policy they’re advocating for is not tu quoque—it’s adding relevant context. The fallacy occurs when this context is used as a complete substitute for addressing the argument’s merits.

​
Common Misconceptions

Not true. Many pieces of advice are true even when the advisor doesn’t follow them. The advice “don’t smoke” is medically sound regardless of whether the advisor smokes.
Wrong. Hypocrisy may damage someone’s moral authority, but it doesn’t change the factual validity of what they’re saying. The truth doesn’t belong to anyone.
Not always. Sometimes noting genuine hypocrisy is relevant to understanding someone’s motivations or credibility. The fallacy occurs when it’s used as a complete substitute for addressing the argument.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself—tu quoque is a specific form of this.

Red Herring

Introducing irrelevant information to divert attention from the main issue—tu quoque is one type of red herring.

Whataboutism

A modern term for the specific practice of responding to accusations by pointing out the accuser’s similar actions—common in political discourse.

Two Wrongs Make a Right

The related fallacy of assuming that because someone else did something wrong, your wrongdoing is justified.

Genetic Fallacy

Judging something based on its origin rather than its current merits—tu quoque judges the argument based on who makes it.

​
One-Line Takeaway

Evaluate arguments on their merits, not on who makes them—a flawed person can still make a valid point, and the truth doesn’t depend on who’s telling it.