When hypocrisy becomes the whole argument
“You’re saying we should cut carbon emissions? Your country is one of the biggest polluters on the planet.”
“You’re criticizing corporate greed? You own stocks.”
“You think people should eat less meat? You’re wearing leather shoes.”
This is tu quoque – Latin for “you too.” It’s a specific flavor of ad hominem attack that responds to criticism by pointing out the critic’s own failures or inconsistencies. Instead of engaging with the argument that was actually made, somebody attacks the person making it for not perfectly living up to their own standards.
It’s also known as the hypocrisy fallacy, and it is EVERYWHERE – because pointing out hypocrisy feels incredibly satisfying.
There’s something viscerally pleasing about catching somebody not practicing what they preach. It feels like a devastating counter. It feels like a win.
It isn’t.
Hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate an argument. A doctor who smokes can still correctly tell you that smoking causes cancer. A financially irresponsible person can still correctly explain why you shouldn’t carry credit card debt. A country with a terrible environmental record can still correctly argue that carbon emissions need to come down.
The truth of the claim and the behavior of the person making the claim are two completely separate issues. When you respond to an argument by pointing at the arguer’s inconsistency, you haven’t addressed the argument at all. You’ve just changed the subject to the person’s character, which is the exact ad hominem move we covered in Essay 15.29.
The structure of tu quoque is pretty clean. Person A makes a claim. Instead of evaluating the claim, Person B attacks Person A’s credibility by pointing out that Person A doesn’t follow their own advice. Suddenly the argument isn’t about the original claim anymore – it’s about Person A’s personal behavior.
Political discourse is drowning in this.
“Democrats say they care about the poor but they’re all millionaires.” “Republicans say they’re pro-life but they don’t support social programs.” Both of these might be pointing at genuine inconsistencies. Neither of them is actually a response to the underlying policy argument.
Now – there’s a real nuance here, because there is one.
Hypocrisy is sometimes relevant. If somebody’s personal integrity is the actual basis of their argument – if they’re claiming authority because of WHO they are rather than because of evidence – then their behavior matters. “Trust me on this diet, I’ve lost 50 pounds” – in that case, whether they actually lost 50 pounds is legitimately relevant to whether you should trust them.
But most of the time, arguments stand or fall on their evidence and their logic, not on whether the person making them is a perfectly consistent human being. Which basically nobody is.
When somebody tu quoques you, the move is pretty simple. Something like – “you might be right that I’m inconsistent. That doesn’t address whether the argument is correct. Can we talk about the argument?”
And watch yourself for the same thing.
It’s easy to dismiss an argument because the person making it is being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is genuinely annoying.
Annoying isn’t the same thing as wrong.