Ad Hominem: Tu Quoque
George Wrisley
A public school teacher argues for increased pay for public school teachers and a taxpayer attacks his argument by replying, “Sure! It’s easy to see why you’re in favor of a raise!” To which the teacher replies, “Well, I can say the same of you; it’s easy to see why you’re against it!”
Douglas Walton, Ad Hominem Arguments
This chapter deals with ad hominem: tu quoque.
You perhaps should start with ad hominem bias (Chapter 8), then read this one, as well as the other chapters on ad hominem: circumstantial (Chapter 9) and ad hominem: direct (Chapter 10).An ad hominem: tu quoque argument is often seen in political debate. When one party impugns the character of another, it is often countered with a response, “you, too!” Presumably the goal of such a response is to distract from or deflate the power of the first party’s allegations. However, the tu quoque ad hominem argument is not merely the claim that the other party is just as guilty as oneself. As Douglas Walton (1998) emphasizes: “The main problem with the textbook treatment of the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy is that according to the way it is most often defined, it becomes essentially the same type of argument as that in the two wrongs make a right fallacy” (233). What makes the ad hominem: tu quoque not merely an instance of the latter but a genuine ad hominem is that it involves both parties’ characters in
some way. As Walton (1998) stresses: “The primary case of the tu quoque type of ad hominem retort occurs when an ad hominem reply is used to respond to an ad hominem attack” (16). Thus, the ad hominem: tu quoque necessarily involves one of the other ad hominem subtypes.
As with all the ad hominem argument forms, the ad hominem: tu quoque has both fallacious and legitimate uses. Thus a main question becomes: How do we differentiate the fallacious from the legitimate instances of ad hominem attack? This is particularly important because of how powerful an influence ad hominem arguments can have on the proponents ability to support her position in a meaningful way.
Fallacious uses of the ad hominem argument type are pernicious, in part, because of how difficult it can be to respond to them in an effective way. Think about how hard it can be for someone to recover from accusations that paint him as a bad person or a hypocrite.The basic form of the fallacy looks like this:
Proponent: Questions/attempts to refute respondent’s position x, not by attacking x, but by attacking the respondent’s character directly or by appeal to circumstances or bias.
Respondent: Questions/attempts to refute proponent’s ad hominem argument/position by alleging that she is equally guilty in a similar way of having a bad character (Walton 1998, 233).
One of the main issues with ad hominem arguments is telling which are fallacious and which are not. To help identify whether an ad hominem: tu quoque argument is fallacious, it will be helpful to ask the following three questions (see Walton 1998, 16):
(1) How good of an argument is the proponent’s ad hominem? Is it fallacious given the critical questions one should ask about it?
(2) How good of an argument is the respondent’s ad hominem? Is it fallacious given the critical questions one should ask about it?
(3) If the proponent’s argument is a good one, how credible is the respondent in regard to her allegations?
Let us look at some examples to illustrate the use of these questions:
Example 1
At a promotional event, after a businessman gives a lecture on the charitable activities of his company, a student accuses him and his company of selling weapons to countries that use them to kill innocent citizens. The businessman replies, “The university you attend has investments in these very companies that manufacture weapons. Your hands aren’t clean either!” (Walton 1989, 147)
In evaluating this tu quoque argument, we begin by evaluating the quality of the proponent’s ad hominem. In this case the proponent is the student, since he is giving the first ad hominem argument. Is it any good? Well, what kind of ad hominem is it? Presumably the argument concerns some inconsistency between the claims being made about the charitable activities of the company in order to promote its value and the accusation of selling weapons that end up being used to kill innocent citizens.
As such, it is best read as an ad hominem: circumstantial, which has its own set of critical questions to ask. What exactly is the inconsistency? It is that the businessman claims that both he and the company he represents are good (because of charitable activities) while both are, however, involved in doing things that are reasonably seen as inconsistent with a good character, that is, selling weapons that kill innocents. Is the businessman/company thereby displaying a commitment that is inconsistent with his/its actions? Possibly. Perhaps not if he doesn’t know that the weapons are being used to kill innocents - though in such a case we might still ask whether he is culpable for his ignorance. One might argue that selling weapons of any kind is inconsistent with the ideals of charity and generosity in the name of improving people’s welfare. These are difficult issues. However, it is not hard to imagine an argument in favor of inconsistency here. Given that the point of the businessman is to promote the image of himself and the company with the claims of charity, such an inconsistency is relevant in this case, as the nature of the inconsistency undermines the force of the businessman’s claims, potentially even showing that it is false that the company is a (morally) good one. Thus, the argument is not fallacious.What about the respondent’s ad hominem? He is presumably intending an analogous kind of attack in response. That is, since he is claiming the student’s hands aren’t clean either, he presumably intends to say that the student’s character is not one that can sustain such a charge, that is, the student is just as inconsistent as he is. Is he? And is he in a relevant way? The student did not offer up evidence of his own moral superiority. Though perhaps we can justifiably attribute to the student a commitment to the claim that selling weapons that are used to kill innocents is bad. If that’s right, then he could be charged with being inconsistent since he pays tuition, thereby supporting the university, which itself invests in the weapons companies.
But we should note that even if there is such a connection between the student’s money and the weapons companies, it is not nearly as direct as the businessman’s due to the differences in the businessman’s and the student’s roles.We should ask, too, whether the student has knowledge of such investments, or if not, if he is culpable for not knowing. For now, let’s say for the sake of analysis that he does know that a portion of his tuition goes to the university’s investments in weapons manufacture. What is the conclusion of the respondent’s argument? Does he intend it to imply that the proponent’s ad hominem/position is refuted or that his advocacy of it is questionable? Either way it doesn’t seem that the respondent’s ad hominem is relevant. The student’s original ad hominem: circumstantial does not depend upon his own moral high ground, so to speak, at least not in the same way as the businessman’s. The businessman was attempting to show the moral high ground of his company, something that is called into question given the weapons allegations. Given his presumably indirect involvement in the university’s weapons deals, and given that the student is not himself attempting to make himself look good, the businessman’s “you, too!” falls flat regardless of his conclusion.
Lastly, if the proponent’s (student’s) argument is a good one, how credible is the respondent (businessman) in regard to his allegations? We’ve seen that the proponent’s argument is a good one. We saw above that even if the respondent is telling the truth about the student, his ad hominem argument is fallacious. So, it won’t matter if the respondent is credible or not, either way, he’s arguing fallaciously. The issue of the respondent’s credibility would only really come up in the case in which the proponent had given a legitimate ad hominem argument against him and the respondent had given a legitimate ad hominem argument in response. At that point, if it turned out that the respondent was not credible in regard to the allegations, then that would undermine their force.
However, in such a case, no fallacy would be committed.Example 2
“I know you like Heidegger, Jon, but his philosophy can’t be taken seriously, given what we now know about his active involvement in the Nazi party. He was clearly not a good man.” “What?! That’s ridiculous, especially coming from you. I heard you talking about your dedication to the Tea Party.”
Let’s consider our three questions. In this tu quoque ad hominem both parties use ad hominem: direct arguments to impugn someone’s character. How good of an argument is the proponent’s ad hominem? Since it is of the direct subtype, we need to consider the critical questions appropriate to it. How well justified are the allegations made against the Heidegger’s person? Well, we’ve learned more and more about Heidegger’s involvement in the Nazi party in recent years. So it seems that there is good reason to accept the basic allegation that he was an active member, even if he wasn’t directing a death camp or the like. Are the details about Heidegger’s person relevant to the argument/position in question? This is much more difficult to assess. You will find some philosophers arguing that his involvement did and others that it did not have negative consequences for Heidegger’s philosophical work. Much more information would be needed to decide this. This is particularly true since much of Heidegger’s work concerned not simply abstract metaphysics but what it means to live an authentic human life. Thus, it is conceivable that his involvement in the Nazi party might indeed prove problematic for his philosophical work, as his views about Jews and the Nazis might impact his views about authenticity and the authentic life. But the key question is whether the proponent’s conclusion is that Heidegger’s involvement with the Nazis is a sufficient reason to take his work as a whole to be refuted or indirectly called into question via Heidegger’s allegedly poor character. If the proponent intends the former, then that is clearly a fallacious inference, as Heidegger’s involvement with the Nazis is simply not sufficient reason to reject all of his work as false, poorly reasoned, or otherwise compromised.
If the proponent intends the allegations merely to call Heidegger’s character into question and thus cast some kind of shadow on his work, perhaps in relation to what he included and what he left out, or what he claimed to be true, then given the truth of the allegations, it seems sufficient to do just that. Thus, such a move would not be fallacious.How good of an argument is the respondent’s, Jon’s, ad hominem: direct? Again, our three questions: How well justified are the allegations made against the proponent’s person? We can’t say with the information provided, but it is unlikely that such an allegation would be made if it wasn’t something that was likely to be true. For if it were false, it would be easy for the proponent to deny it and end that part of the conversation. Though that might be different if there are others around who don’t really know the proponent. Nevertheless, for the sake of analysis, let’s assume that the allegations are true, that the proponent is a dedicated Tea Party member. Are such details about the proponent’s person relevant to the argument/ position in question? What is the respondent’s argument? Presumably something like: “The Proponent rejects Heidegger’s work because he was a Nazi. But we shouldn’t listen to that since the Proponent is himself a Tea Party member. Belonging to the Tea Party reflects poorly on the Proponent’s character and credibility.” Whether one thinks this last claim is true or not, let’s assume it is for the sake of our analysis. If it were true, would it give us reason either to question the proponent’s argument/position or to reject it as refuted? Perhaps if Heidegger were extremely liberal in his political affiliation, then given the conservative nature of the Tea Party, one might wonder if the proponent has a negative bias that would influence his judgment regarding what he asserts, and so on. However, the Nazi party isn’t exactly liberal; so this doesn’t seem to be a possible relevant connection. Would the conservative traits that the respondent presumes to belong to Tea Party members make the proponent less reliable in his ability to assess the relationship between Heidegger’s being a Nazi and the quality of his philosophy? It is hard to see the connection. Thus, it doesn’t seem that the respondent’s ad hominem: direct is really relevant to the proponent’s ad hominem: direct.
Thus, regardless of whether the respondent intends us to question the proponent’s character, and indirectly his argument, or whether the respondent takes the proponent’s position to be refuted, we have not been given sufficient reason to do either. Thus, on either reading the respondent is giving a fallacious version of an ad hominem: direct and so the example is a case of a fallacious ad hominem: tu quoque.
Reference
Walton, Douglas. 1998. Ad Hominem Arguments. Birmingham, AL: The University of Alabama Press.