Appeal to hypocrisy

Appeal to hypocrisy (also known as Tu quoque, Latin for, ‘you also’) is an informal logical fallacy that tries to discredit the validity of the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

The Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy follows the pattern:

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
  3. Conclusion: Therefore X is false.

An example would be

Peter: ‘Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing.’

Bill: ‘But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?’

This argument is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the validity of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.



Filed under Logical fallacies, Reblogs

3 responses to “Appeal to hypocrisy

  1. Pingback: Random Reflections 2 – Exploring Unpopular Culture

  2. Donald Shull

    I have been trying to sort this out for about a month. For the previous sixty years I had assumed that the quoque was a logical response, say, to the various putative sources of happiness in Rasselas, and that it was the logical response to an ad hominem statement: “yes, as you say, I may have non disinterested grounds for affirming X, but you may just as easily be supposed to have non disinterested reasons for denying X. Recently on a Wikipedia thread a poster took the position that if a person makes a universal claim (eg “All killing of persons is evil”) it is not fallacious to bring up that the person has made and continues to make a claim that contradicts the universality (eg “killing in self defense is not evil”). The poster asserted that if this is tu quoque, it is surely quite different from from attributing the assertion to personality or character (eg ” You think killing is evil because you are a coward or because you have no sympathy for victims or because your safety is guaranteed by your privileged status.) both sound like tu quoque to me, but the seem very different. The first is not about the asserter’s character but about the rule against contradiction. The second is purely ad hominem.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s