Tu quoque is Latin for “You too”. So you justify your wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”
This is Part 3 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.
My mother did this on the phone the other day. We were talking about religion when my mother told me I should start a cult or my own religion, because they make so much money. (WTF?) I replied that it would be unethical to take advantage of people who are weak and can’t think for themselves. She said the churches do it all the time, so why shouldn’t I. I told her that sometimes you have to do the right thing just because it’s right. I couldn’t remember the Latin name for the fallacy, but I did note that two wrongs don’t make a right, as people who use this logical fallacy try to assume. (I won’t even go into how weird that whole conversation was. I mean, seriously!)
A lot of times people who are into alternative health modalities will use this argument. They’ll say that even though their therapies may lack evidence, some mainstream modalities also lack evidence.
How do you refute such an argument? Well, I think it’s rather straightforward.
When someone suggests that 2 wrongs make a right, such as the example given by my mother up above, simply call them on it. Two wrongs DON’T make a right.
If you have anything more to add, please feel free. If I think of anything else to help us deal with the Tu quoque fallacy, I’ll be sure to let you know.
For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:
This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.
Atheist: “You cannot prove that God exists.”
Theist: “Oh yeah? Well, you cannot prove that God DOESN’T exist!”
I love the Latin names. I should make a shirt that says “Tu Quoque” on it.
Reply to This Comment
Hey James, yeah, the Latin names are awesome, aren’t they? I think the argument you have there is some other fallacy, but I don’t know the exact name. I’ll have to figure it out and do that one next.
I expect to see a Tu quoque t-shirt in your gallery within a day or two.
Reply to This Comment
I hope that you can identify the name for that one because is it so common!
Reply to This Comment
Don’t you worry, my friend. I’ll find it. I am pretty sure I know what it is, but I want to get it all right. I’m aiming for a post about it tomorrow.
Reply to This Comment
James,
In your example involving God, I believe you are illustrating the “ad ignoradium” or the appeal to ignorance fallacy. This is simply using a lack of evidence against something to prove it valid.
Reply to This Comment
Hi Pat, and thanks, you’re right.
Reply to This Comment
There’s a term for things like the quote “two wrongs don’t make a right” — thought-terminating cliches.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
January 24th, 2010 at 6:57 am
I don’t really understand your stance with that. But no, it isn’t necessarily always a “thought-terminating cliche”.
If I’m assuming your stance correctly, you just posted the quote “thought-terminating cliche” and used it as a thought-terminating cliche.
How Neece used “two wrongs don’t make a right”, was not in the realms considered to be a thought-terminating cliche.
Context, context, context.
Reply to This Comment