Name this fallacy

[Suzanne in ABQ]

So, l hear this argument all the time, in political commentary especially, but in other contexts as well, and it drives me crazy.  My dh does it all the time.  My kids used to do it when they were younger.  Sports fans do it all the time.  It is rampant.  It's kind of Red Herring, but it seems more specific because always points attention to someone else doing the same thing, as a justification for doing something wrong.  

 

Example1:

Fan1: "That was a foul.  Player from TeamA was holding the player from TeamB."

Fan2: "Well, TeamB has been holding against TeamA the whole game."

 

Example2:

Mom: "You're eating a cookie.  I told you not to eat those because they're for the party tomorrow."

Kid: "Well, Brother ate two already!"

 

Example3:

Person 1: "Wow, I can't believe "Political Figure A" lied about such-and-such."

Person 2: "Well, "Political Figure B" lies all the time."

 

 

Is this a recognized fallacy, or is it just something that drives me crazy?

 

[Liz CA]

It's deflection and blaming. I don't know if it's considered a fallacy. Either way, the person is not addressing the issue at hand but seeks to place blame on someone else.

[TranquilMind]

So, l hear this argument all the time, in political commentary especially, but in other contexts as well, and it drives me crazy.  My dh does it all the time.  My kids used to do it when they were younger.  Sports fans do it all the time.  It is rampant.  It's kind of Red Herring, but it seems more specific because always points attention to someone else doing the same thing, as a justification for doing something wrong.  

 

Example1:

Fan1: "That was a foul.  Player from TeamA was holding the player from TeamB."

Fan2: "Well, TeamB has been holding against TeamA the whole game."

 

Example2:

Mom: "You're eating a cookie.  I told you not to eat those because they're for the party tomorrow."

Kid: "Well, Brother ate two already!"

 

Example3:

Person 1: "Wow, I can't believe "Political Figure A" lied about such-and-such."

Person 2: "Well, "Political Figure B" lies all the time."

 

 

Is this a recognized fallacy, or is it just something that drives me crazy?

Tu quoque:  appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion

Did you mean that?

[Charlie]

I agree with ^^^. Tu Quoque:

 

 

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

 

Otherwise known as the "you too" fallacy, it refers to the idea that the claim made is rejected not based on the merits of the claim (or lack thereof), but because the person making the claim is supposedly guilty of not adhering to the ideal. It falls under ad hominem category of fallacies (the claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrlelvant fact about the person making the claim or argument).

 

So in your examples, Team A's foul shouldn't count, eating the cookie isn't unjustified, and these lies should be ignored.

[Guest]

Tu Quoque

 

The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically committed by children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it tooâ€, with the implied conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is that they have done. This is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in the wrong, and because, as we were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

 

[Guest]

Look at all these great minds, doing stuff at the same time :laugh:

[J-rap]

Well, as that old saying goes, "Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right."

[SparklyUnicorn]

seems like a reasonable reaction though...even if not 100% correct

 

 

[Suzanne in ABQ]

Thank you.  Tu Quoque. I knew there had to be a name, something I could gently throw at my dh every time he does this.   ;)

 

 

Just for clarification:

Is it still considered Tu Quoque if the person asserting fault is a third party?  (so not, "back at ya" but "back at them")

 

 

 

ETA: Never mind.  I looked it up.  :)

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Suzanne in ABQ

[rose]

Thank you.  Tu Quoque. I knew there had to be a name, something I could gently throw at my dh every time he does this.   ;)

 

 

Just for clarification:

Is it still considered Tu Quoque if the person asserting fault is a third party?  (so not, "back at ya" but "back at them")

 

 

 

ETA: Never mind.  I looked it up.   :)

So what was your conclusion? I could look it up too but this easier. ;)

[eternalsummer]

Generally speaking when I see or hear people make this argument, they are not saying that the action in question is correct because the other party did the same thing, but that you (as a representative of the argument that the action is wrong) cannot possibly be serious in your condemnation of the action, as you have only condemned it when people with whom you otherwise disagree are doing it.

 

 

[kewb]

I see this all the time. Dh and I call it the toddler argument. So frustrating.

[Guest]

Tu Quoque

How do you say this? Is it too-KWOK'?

[Guest]

I have no idea. I think it as two coke. I don't think I've ever said that out loud :-D

[Mergath]

I think of it as the "homeschoolers are allowed to do a crappy job because public schools suck too" argument, because that's how I see it most often. :P

[Guest]

I think of it as the "homeschoolers are allowed to do a crappy job because public schools suck too" argument, because that's how I see it most often. :P

Although that is kinda hard to say. :D

 

I call that the "Two wrongs don't make a right" argument.

[Mergath]

Although that is kinda hard to say. :D

 

I call that the "Two wrongs don't make a right" argument.

 

Yeah, it doesn't quite roll off the tongue. :lol:  Yours works better.

[nansk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[goldberry]

 

Just for clarification:

Is it still considered Tu Quoque if the person asserting fault is a third party?  (so not, "back at ya" but "back at them")

 

ETA: Never mind.  I looked it up.   :)

 

Yes, what did you discover?  It does seem a bit different than Tu Quoque.  

 

ETA, for example, I see #1 and #3 in your first post as slightly different from #2.

Edited February 6, 2017 by goldberry

[Suzanne in ABQ]

How do you say this? Is it too-KWOK'?

 

It's three syllables:  too KWOH-kway (or:  too KWAW-kweh)

Edited February 6, 2017 by Suzanne in ABQ

[Suzanne in ABQ]

Yes, what did you discover?  It does seem a bit different than Tu Quoque.  

 

ETA, for example, I see #1 and #3 in your first post as slightly different from #2.

 

 

So what was your conclusion? I could look it up too but this easier. ;)

 

 

 

Okay, this is what I found.

 

There is a broad category of informal fallacies called Ignoratio Elenchi, which (from Wikipedia) "also known as irrelevant conclusion,^[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also known as missing the point.  (I would add: deliberately changing/deflecting/diluting/avoiding the subject)

 

Within this category, I discovered that Red Herrings are actually broken down into many specific types.  Two that apply here are 1) Tu Quoque (pronounced: too kwoh-kway), and 2) Two Wrongs Make a Right.  

These are very similar, but (as goldberry pointed out) they have different purposes.  

 

From Wikipedia:

• Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.^[94]
• Two wrongs make a right â€“ occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, an "equal but opposite" wrong will cancel it out.

 

So, Tu quoque is used in first and second person, with the accused throwing the accusation back at the accuser (you're one to talk; you're a hypocrite; you do it too), in order to either nullify the accusation or justify their own actions.

OTOH, "Two wrongs make a right" can also be used against a third party accuser, more as a deflection of the accusation, to take the attention off their own wrong, or avoid dealing with the problem, or maybe cloud the waters.  

 

 

Thanks for your input.  Dh has read this thread with interest, and promises not to do this anymore.   :thumbup:

[Guest]

I'm wondering if it is still Tu Quoque if the arguer is assuming the other would do the same under the same circumstances, or if that it is a different fallacy.

 

Ex.: "You stole a loaf of bread!"

"My nephew was starving to death; you would steal bread, too if your nephew was dying."

[Bluegoat]

Generally speaking when I see or hear people make this argument, they are not saying that the action in question is correct because the other party did the same thing, but that you (as a representative of the argument that the action is wrong) cannot possibly be serious in your condemnation of the action, as you have only condemned it when people with whom you otherwise disagree are doing it.

 

Yes.

 

I think we have to be so careful about claiming a fallacy, because people are not always using the argument in the way we think.

 

For example - I often see people say a particular argument is ad hominem, when it isn't.  Someone is saying that X's argument is not believeable because that person did such-and-such.  On the face, its an ad hominem argument.  But what they are really saying is they don't consider that person a reliable source of information or authority, so they don't take their claim seriously.

 

And this relates to the idea of appeal to authority.  It is of course wrong to say that an argument is correct because some authority says so - ideally you look at it based on its merits.  IN reality though, authority is very important, because many times we are not qualifies to assess a particular idea or even get anything from the data involved.  Nor are we able to see whether the basic information is even reliable.  THe whole edifice of peer review is designed to provide authority.  That the recognized authorities agree is a reasonable argument within some contexts, even though in another context it would be fallacious.

 

 

In talking about the OPs argument I think what people are getting at is sometimes along those lines - they don't care because the whole thing is rigged, or they feel that the unfairness all comes out in the wash since it applies to both sides (especially in sports), or its the basic reality of the situation and realistically no one can avoid it (in politics, especially).