<i>Tu Quoque</i> as <i>ad Hominem</i>
Saturday, 10. March 2007, 17:49:55
I'm assuming that a fallacy can occur only in the context of an argument--not the kind of arguments involving emotional disagreements, but the kind of argument where a conclusion is claimed to logically follow from reasons or evidence presented.
Let's take a look at two passages from Time magazine's "Letters to the Editor" illustrating the tu quoque. In both examples, the issues in the original argument are dropped, and the character of the author of the argument is addressed, instead. Since the contextual evidence indicates the two replies are intended to oppose the original arguments, the tu quoque's cited here may be considered fallacious appeals.
Even though the tu quoque is an informal fallacy (a fallacy variant of ad hominem), its structure is most often like this, as described in Wikipedia:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
When presented in this manner, the argument structure reveals the irrelevancy clearly. Another variant of the tu quoque is discussed by Julian Baggini, the editor of The Philosophers' Magazine, in "Bad Moves: Tu quoque."
The first passage is on the subject of horsemeat as a part of the diet of many countries.
Would You Dine Equine?
[Joel Stein] said that in the U.S. we oppose eating horsemeat because we think "like a 14-year-old girl." He sounds like an 8-year-old boy who pulls the wings off flies for fun. Perhaps Stein should also order some cat, dog and hamster meat.
Karla LaFitte
Spring, Texas
(Karla LaFitte, "Would You Dine Equine?" in "Letters," Time, 169 No. 10 (5 March 2007), 15.)
Notice how not only is there a tu quoque present, but also there is a parting hint of the slippery slope fallacy.
The second passage is related to a news story about NASA astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak:
A Woman Scorned
Jeffrey Kluger stated that "In the tut-tut world of exposé journalism, astronauts—particularly women—misbehave at their peril." I'm not sure exactly how women these days are "misbehaving," but I am sure that there are countless successful, powerful women who would be incensed by your characterization. Just take a look at the way our male politicians are acting and tell me that they are not the ones misbehaving at their peril.
Katie McGuire
Danville, Calif
(Katie McGuire, "A Woman Scorned" in "Letters," Time, 169 No. 10 (5 March 2007), 15.)
Again, this passage fits closely the formal structure described above for the tu quoque fallacy. Also, there's a suggestion of another compounding fallacy. The snob appeal of an ad populum purportedly adds support to Katie McGuire's conclusion by pointing out that "countless successful, powerful women who would be incensed by [the] characterization."
WIDGETIZE