I think it's fair to assume the vast majority of us are familiar with the phrase two wrongs don't make a right". We've been raised with it, simply because it's one of the most basic lessons we learn in our childhood. We got in trouble, we tried to justify ourselves with the troublesome behavior of our fellow children, or even, in some cases, our own parents. Sometimes, the behavior is connected. "Why am I in trouble for talking in class? So was Johnny!" Other times, not so much. "You're yelling at me for cussing? You never told Susie off for stealing those cookies!"
Of course, sometimes, the "wrong" on the other person's end isn't even actually wrong. Staying with the topic of children, what do we do when a child tries to argue they should be allowed a later bed time because mommy and daddy stay up late all the time? In this case, the inconsistency is apparent, but not actual.
All three cases are directly related to the Tu Quoque fallacy, otherwise known as the appeal to hypocrisy, or, as it more literally translates to, the "you too" fallacy. That is, the appeal to the hypocrisy or inconsistency of one's opponent.
As I think my examples show, the Tu Quoque fallacy is one of the most childish fallacies a person can make, but ultimately, we never really grow out of it. This is especially evident in moral discussions, such as sexual ethics. Our culture is way out of control in that regard. We are saturated with porn, we undermine and redefine marriage, we encourage fornication, we're even fighting to protect the physical integrity of our kids while radicals - some of whom are even in government - actively campaign for their mutilation in the name of the LGBT agenda.
But how can I speak out in defence of Biblical ethics when I cuss like a sailor? This is a genuine argument I received back in the days when the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples was relatively new. I had posted an article about a gay couple who sued a florist - their friend up to that point, no less - because she had refused, on religious grounds, to provide flowers to their so-called "wedding". Naturally, I'm quite opposed to such disgraceful behavior, not only because I am a Christian who believes she is right to refuse to be involved in gay "weddings", but because I do not believe anyone should be forced to participate in a ritual or ceremony that violates their religious views.
A friend and ex-coworker of mine picked up on the article and got very angry, seeking any excuse to rage against me for speaking the Biblical truth. Having worked with me in the past, he was actually familiar with my own unbiblical behavior. I have always struggled with bad language, and it was significantly worse back when he knew me. His friend went even further, pointing out that I actually used to be gay, so it was, in her mind, extremely hypocritical to speak against it now.
What's the problem here? Well, there are actually four. The first is that I may well be a hypocrite, but that doesn't affect the truth of my views, it only means I am in need of personal growth. The second is that this personal growth has occurred. You aren't a hypocrite for speaking against the mistakes of your own past. The third is that my friend was, himself, being hypocritical, because the very things he spoke against (particularly intolerance towards other people's views) are the very things he practiced. Finally, and most importantly, the Christian faith is almost unique in that it has a hypocrisy engine built in!
The first problem discussed above is precisely why the Tu Quoque fallacy is a fallacy in the first place. It is, in effect, an extension of the ad hominem fallacy. Ultimately, truth is truth regardless of the individuals who discuss it. You can be a very bad mathematician, you can still say 1 + 1 = 2. You can be a very bad scientist, you can still rebuke the claim that the Earth is a flat box floating on the back of a giant turtle. You can be a bad historian and think Holocaust deniers are bat flap crazy. Ultimately, yes, you can be a major hypocrite, you can be the absolute scum of the Earth, but whatever moral claim you make must be taken on its merits, not your own.
The second problem discussed above makes even less sense, because it is inconsistent with the very personal growth one is expected to exhibit. The idea of an argument isn't to "win", but ultimately, true victory comes when at least one person, preferably both, learns from the experience. But how can one grow if personal growth makes one a hypocrite?
The third problem discussed above is a fatal flaw in and of itself. There is a difference between "you are inconsistent with your views", which is the Tu Quoque Fallacy, and "your view is inconsistent", which is using the logical law of non-contradiction to criticise a view without appealing to one's opponent. In this case, my friend's standard of judgment was inconsistent. Intolerance against intolerance purely because it is intolerant is self destructive, because intolerance against intolerance is intolerant. It's like commanding a robot to destroy anything it perceives as a robot. Point out "you are a robot", it blows up.
The final problem discussed above is Christianity's own inbuilt hypocrisy engine. Although Scripture makes it very clear that sin is a thing we're supposed to hate, it also makes it clear that perfect freedom from it is a gift we will only be able to open on the other side of the grave. While we live in what Paul refers to as the "body of death" (Romans 7:24), sin still lives within us, and so John goes as far as to say "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10). In other words, while the Tu Quoque Fallacy is always a fallacy, it is especially fallacious to use it against a Christian. While a Tu Quoque argument usually just fails miserably to prove a point or belief wrong, it actually serves as proof of concept for the Christian faith. Yes, we are all sinners - let us therefore talk about the Savior! It is akin to a malfunctioning, free-falling airplane, which will bring all who remain on it to their inevitable demise. None of us can fly to safety, but it is absurd to say "you can't fly, so I don't need one of those parachutes". Yes, you do, so put it on, jump from the plane, and pull the chord.
AI usage:
AI was used to created the header image for this article.
Comments