--- title: "Tu Quoque" description: "Tu quoque, the appeal to hypocrisy, rejects a claim by pointing out that the person making it fails to live up to it. It is a subtype of ad hominem. A speaker's inconsistency is a fact about them, not about their claim, so the argument remains exactly as strong as it was." last_updated: "2026-08-02" --- # Tu Quoque *Also known as: appeal to hypocrisy* Tu quoque, the appeal to hypocrisy, rejects a claim by pointing out that the person making it fails to live up to it. It is a subtype of ad hominem. A speaker's inconsistency is a fact about them, not about their claim, so the argument remains exactly as strong as it was. Deflecting criticism by charging the critic with the same fault, rather than addressing the substance of the criticism. *Example: A doctor tells you to quit smoking; you snap, "But you smoke too!" — which doesn't make the advice wrong.* ## What it looks like **In a climate discussion** > She lectures everyone about carbon footprints but flies private jets. Why should anyone listen? *Why it fails:* Her travel habits reveal an inconsistency in her conduct, not a flaw in the emissions data. A doctor who smokes can still be right that smoking causes cancer. **In a parenting exchange** > You're telling me not to smoke? You smoked for twenty years. *Why it fails:* Past behaviour has no bearing on whether the health evidence is sound. If anything, direct experience of the difficulty strengthens the credibility of the warning. **In a code review** > You're flagging my missing tests, but half your own modules have no coverage either. *Why it fails:* Whether this module needs tests is settled by the risk it carries, not by the reviewer's record. Both modules can need tests; the observation does not answer the point. ## Practice ### Question 1 A finance minister argues for austerity. A critic responds: "His own department expanded its budget by 30% last year." Which is the strongest analysis? A. The critic has refuted the case for austerity B. This is tu quoque as an argument, but the inconsistency is legitimate evidence about the minister's sincerity or competence, which is a different question from whether austerity is sound policy C. The critic has committed a red herring by discussing budgets D. The inconsistency is entirely irrelevant and should not be raised **Answer: B.** This question separates two things that get conflated. As a refutation of the policy argument, the response fails — the economic case stands or falls on economics. As evidence about whether the minister believes his own case, or applies it consistently, it is genuinely relevant and worth raising. Option D overcorrects; hypocrisy can matter, just not for the question of whether the policy works. ### Question 2 Why is tu quoque classified as a subtype of ad hominem? A. Because it always involves insults B. Because it redirects from the argument to a fact about the person making it — specifically, the gap between their words and their conduct C. Because both are used only in political debate D. Because it attacks the person's expertise **Answer: B.** Both fallacies share the same structural move: substituting a fact about the speaker for engagement with what they said. Tu quoque narrows this to one particular fact — inconsistency between stated position and behaviour. Option D describes a different variant, since attacking expertise is not the same as alleging hypocrisy. ### Question 3 When is pointing out someone's inconsistency legitimate rather than fallacious? A. Never — it is always a fallacy B. When the inconsistency is itself the subject, such as evaluating whether someone should be trusted to enforce a rule they break C. Whenever the inconsistency is well documented D. Only in legal contexts **Answer: B.** The question being asked determines whether it is relevant. "Is this policy sound?" is not answered by the advocate's conduct. "Should this person be the one enforcing it?" or "Do they actually believe this?" are answered partly by exactly that. The fallacy is using conduct to settle the first kind of question. ### Question 4 Which of these is NOT a tu quoque? A. "You say I should recycle, but I have seen your bin." B. "You criticize my spending, and you bought a boat last year." C. "Your argument for the deadline assumes the API is ready, and it is not — that assumption is what fails." D. "You want me to apologize, but you never apologized to me." **Answer: C.** Option C engages the argument's structure directly, identifying a false premise. It says nothing about the speaker at all. The other three each deflect by pointing at the other person's behaviour, leaving the original claim — recycle, spending, apologize — entirely unaddressed. ### Question 5 What does the persistence of tu quoque in public argument suggest about why it works? A. People genuinely believe hypocrisy makes claims false B. It exploits a real intuition that hypocrisy is a moral failing, and lets that legitimate objection stand in for a refutation the speaker does not have C. It is only effective on those unfamiliar with logic D. It works because most claims are in fact false **Answer: B.** The intuition it borrows is sound — hypocrisy really is a failing and noticing it is not unreasonable. The fallacy smuggles that legitimate moral reaction into the place where an argument should be. This is why simply naming the fallacy rarely persuades: the underlying complaint feels justified, because in its own domain it is. ## Frequently asked ### Is pointing out hypocrisy always a fallacy? No. It is fallacious when offered as a reason the person's claim is false. It is legitimate when the question is about their credibility, sincerity, or fitness to enforce a standard. The same observation can be either, depending entirely on what is being argued. ### What is the difference between tu quoque and whataboutism? Whataboutism is closely related and often used interchangeably. Tu quoque specifically charges the speaker with failing their own standard; whataboutism deflects by raising someone else's misconduct, which need not involve the speaker at all. Both redirect rather than answer. ### How do I respond when someone uses tu quoque against me? Concede the inconsistency if it is real — denying it hands them the point — and then separate the two questions explicitly: "You're right that I haven't been consistent. That doesn't change whether the claim is true, which is what we were discussing." Conceding costs nothing and removes the diversion. ## Related - [Ad Hominem](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/glossary/ad-hominem.md) - [Red Herring](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/glossary/red-herring.md) - [Straw Man](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/glossary/straw-man.md) - [Identifying Logical Fallacies](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/exercises/identifying-fallacies.md) - [Fallacies in Everyday Life](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/exercises/fallacies-in-everyday-life.md) - [Lesson: traps-and-pitfalls/logical-fallacies-formal-relevance](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/learn/traps-and-pitfalls/logical-fallacies-formal-relevance.md) ## Sitemap See the full [sitemap](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/sitemap.md) for all pages.