Tu Quoque
When we were younger and confronted with all kinds of frivolous arguments and challenges on the recess table, we would likely respond with statements like, “takes one to know one,” or, “I’m rubber and you’re glue; what bounces off me sticks to you.”
As adults, we tend to use fancier language, but still easily fall prey to the same tendency: the tu quoque fallacy.
In Latin, tu quoque means “you also.” In personal discussions, tu quoque takes place when one disputant attempts to counter an argument by appealing to the hypocritical behavior of their opponent: since you do the same kind of thing against which you are arguing, your argument is now invalid. Tu quoque is not restricted to arguments between and regarding individuals: the same kind of argumentation is often present when discussing institutions, societies, and especially political parties. Some have attempted to use tu quoque as a kind of legal defense, arguing the prosecuting authority has committed the same kinds of crimes or infractions of which the defendant is accused.
Perhaps the most common form of tu quoque today is “whataboutism”: whenever a critique is leveled at a particular person, institution, or socio-political bloc, those aligned to some degree with those receiving the critique tend to deflect by bringing up what is imagined to be a corresponding difficulty or challenge with those giving the critique: well, what about this or that which your people are doing?
To an extent, “bothsidesism” can also be a form of tu quoque when the appeal to “both sides” is made in order to deflect from critiques of one of those two sides.
The family of tu quoque fallacies fall under the overarching category of ad hominem attacks, arguing against the person as opposed to the substance of what is being advanced or argued.
Tu quoque retorts remain popular and prevalent because they feel emotionally and morally satisfying and can often succeed at deflecting the force of argument and critique by derailing the conversation or poisoning the well of discourse so as to make that which is argued against or critiqued less unpalatable.
Yet any argument in the tu quoque family really reflects impoverishment of argument: when people cannot well rebut an argument on substantive terms, people will attempt to find ways to discredit the one making the argument. Thus tu quoque, more often than not, is an admission of defeat: the premise of the argument or critique cannot be seriously denied.
But tu quoque also reflects a lack of a desire to truly absorb the argument or the critique; its force must be blunted because it proves uncomfortable, demoralizing, and/or detrimental to causes which one holds dear. Since we are human and we maintain specific kinds of associations, we tend to manifest bias in our interpretation of and perspective on our behavior and the behavior of others. We also specifically tend to manifest confirmation bias; as indicated by Jesus’ illustration in Matthew 7:1-4, we tend to be very judgmental about the failings of others while tending to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. This tendency proves true for us as individuals but also as we think in terms of groups or parties. And so tu quoque retorts allow us to avoid any substantive re-appraisal of our views or postures while feeling undeservedly smug about “us” versus “them.”
Yet is it not true that people are often hypocritical in their argumentation, and should that hypocrisy not get pointed out? Moral and ethical hypocrisy are very real things. Very often people will condemn something they end up doing, or do certain things without expecting to suffer consequences while expecting others to suffer consequences if and when they do something similar.
There are many times when people quite flagrantly hold very different standards for themselves than they do for other people. They expect the rules to be in place for others but disregard the rules for themselves. We should not be surprised when people in the world maintain such double standards, especially if it “works” for them according to worldly, demonic wisdom (cf. James 3:14-15). It should not be so, however, among the people of God; our God shows no partiality in judgment, and none among us exist above and beyond the standards of what God has accomplished in Christ (Romans 2:5-11, James 2:1-13).
But not all forms of moral hypocrisy are flagrant double standards. Many times people fail to live up to their ideals, especially when they are motivated by anxieties and fears. We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:7-10); all of us, therefore, have proven hypocritical at times.
Thus, while there might be times when pointing out flagrant double standards might be part of a package of argumentation against a given person and/or position, such can never be the basis of the substantive argument. No argument is inherently invalidated because of the moral failings or hypocrisy of the one making the argument. Sometimes the worst people speak truth (e.g. 1 Kings 20:11).
Instead, we do better when we confess what tu quoque retorts unconsciously affirm: the legitimacy of the moral or ethical principle regarding which the accusation of hypocrisy is made. Just because both sides do something does not make it right, and the fact that the other side does it never excuses, justifies, or rationalizes it when done by our side. Far too many people these days uphold compromised ethical and moral standards because of the ultimate end of cynical tu quoque arguments: if we are all moral hypocrites, then perhaps we should just rationalize our behaviors and carry on. According to this perspective, as long as the other side is doing it, we are justified in doing it. If others bend the rules, we can bend the rules. If others mock, deride, and insult, then we mock, deride, and insult.
We should not be surprised when people in the world behave in this manner; such is how worldly consciences get seared into justifying and rationalizing that which is contrary to God’s purposes (e.g. Romans 1:18-32). But it must not be so among the people of God, for whom the standard of what God has accomplished in Christ should remain paramount!
Will this mean Christians will suffer? Almost everything which goes on in the world provides an opportunity or a situation for Christians to suffer (cf. Acts 14:22, 1 Peter 4:1-19). Christians will always be at a disadvantage in the world when they hold to the standard of God’s conduct in Christ, just as Jesus was thus at a disadvantage (Philippians 2:5-11). Christians will be held to a higher standard and will suffer greater derision and mockery when they fail to meet that standard.
We might cry about how it is unfair, but we were never promised fairness. We have been called to faithfulness before God in Christ (Galatians 5:22). If we compromise our convictions so we can win some arguments or gain power in this world, but lose our soul and witness in the process, what have we really gained (cf. Matthew 16:26-27)?
Tu quoque arguments will always prove seductive; they provide immediate emotional and psychological gratification. Yet they expose more about the person making them than the one against whom they are made. It is never good enough to point out the hypocrisy of others; if we feel comfortable with lowering the bar and excusing, justifying, or rationalizing immoral or unethical principles or behaviors, we need to sit in that, confess, lament, and repent lest we compromise the truth of God in Christ and suffer on the day of judgment.
In the resurrection, after the Lord Jesus restored Simon Peter to Himself, foretold the death he would suffer, and called on Peter to follow Him (John 21:15-19). In response, seeing John, Peter “whatabouted” in John 21:20: Lord, what about him? If I have to die for You, what about him? Jesus sharply responded to Peter in John 21:21:
Jesus replied, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours? You follow me!”
Such is how we should look at every situation in which we are tempted to use tu quoque retorts. Well, what about them? The Lord Jesus will judge. But they’re doing the thing they condemn in us! Yes, the Lord Jesus will judge. Jesus will handle them. We need to be much more concerned about how we are following Jesus and how Jesus might judge us, and we can maintain great confidence Jesus will not excuse, justify, or rationalize away our distorted and immoral principles or behaviors because other people also did them. No matter what others might do, we do best to root and ground ourselves in the truth and witness of God in Christ, and seek the resurrection of life in Him!
Ethan R. Longhenry
The post Tu Quoque appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
