Tu Quoque
Deflecting criticism of one's own position by pointing out that the critic's position has the same or similar problems. 'You do it too' is not a defense — it is an evasion. In theological debate, this often surfaces as 'your tradition has problems too' in response to legitimate critique.
Source: Classical rhetoric tradition (Latin) – Public Domain
Also known as: You Too Fallacy, Appeal to Hypocrisy, Whataboutism
Tu quoque (Latin: 'you also' or 'you too') is an informal fallacy that responds to criticism not by engaging the substance of the criticism but by pointing out that the critic is also guilty of the same or a comparable fault. It is a species of red herring and ad hominem combined: it deflects from the actual argument by redirecting attention to the critic's inconsistency. Even if the inconsistency charge is accurate, it does not address whether the original criticism is valid.
Tu quoque is perhaps the most universally practiced evasion in theological debate because the symmetry of the fallacy makes it available in all directions. Any tradition that criticizes another can be met with a list of comparable problems in its own house. Catholic critics of Protestant biblical interpretation can be met with 'but the Catholic Church has its own interpretive traditions that are not always well-grounded.' Protestant critics of Catholic tradition can be met with 'but Luther's exegesis of Paul has been challenged by serious New Testament scholars.' None of these responses engage the specific criticism; they redirect to the critic.
The tu quoque fails logically because the validity of a criticism does not depend on the consistency of the critic. If a hypocrite warns that a building is on fire, the fire is still real. If a scholar with inconsistent standards in their own work identifies a genuine fallacy in yours, the fallacy is still genuine. The hypocrisy of the critic is a separate matter that should be addressed separately — it does not retroactively invalidate the criticism.
Modern political discourse has produced the term 'whataboutism' for the politically common form of this fallacy: 'What about [comparable action by the other side]?' This is recognized as intellectually bankrupt in political journalism but continues to flourish in theological debate. The remedy is not to refuse to acknowledge problems in the opposing tradition — they may be genuine and relevant — but to engage the specific criticism on its own terms before raising comparable problems elsewhere.
- 1A specific criticism is met not with engagement of the criticism but with a list of the critic's own faults or comparable problems in the critic's tradition
- 2The word 'but' is followed by a description of the critic's problems rather than a response to the critique
- 3The phrase 'what about...' or 'your tradition also...' or 'you do the same thing when...' appears as a primary response to a critique
- 4The response would be equally valid regardless of whether the original criticism were true or false
- 5The critic's hypocrisy or inconsistency is used as grounds for dismissing the criticism rather than as a separate point deserving its own response
Jesus addressed tu quoque-style thinking in the Sermon on the Mount, but significantly not as a rhetorical move to deflect criticism — as a genuine spiritual diagnostic. 'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?' (Matthew 7:3) is not saying 'don't criticize your brother because you have problems too.' It is saying 'begin with honest self-examination, which is the prerequisite for honest criticism of others.' The order matters: the beam first, then the speck. Tu quoque inverts this: it uses the other person's speck to avoid examining one's own beam. Romans 2:1 makes a similar diagnostic point: 'You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.' This is not a prohibition on all moral evaluation; it is a warning against the self-deception that assumes one is exempt from the standards one applies to others.
Identify the specific criticism being made and the response being given
Ask: What exact claim is being criticized, and does the response engage that specific claim or redirect to something about the critic?
State the original criticism and the response separately: 'The criticism is [X]. The response is [Y].' If Y describes a problem with the critic rather than evidence against X, the tu quoque pattern is present. The test: Would Y be relevant to the validity of X if it were said by a different person who didn't have the alleged faults?
Acknowledge any hypocrisy or inconsistency in the critic, but separately from the validity of the criticism
Ask: If the critic is inconsistent, does their inconsistency affect whether the criticism is valid?
The critic's inconsistency may be real and worth addressing — but it is a separate matter. 'You are right that there is a problem here, and separately, I note that you have comparable problems in your own tradition' is honest. 'Your tradition has comparable problems, so this criticism doesn't stand' is the fallacy. Address each issue on its own merits.
Engage the original criticism on its own terms
Ask: What is the actual response to the specific criticism raised — the evidence, the reasoning, or the principled disagreement that addresses it directly?
After noting (separately) any genuine asymmetry in the critic's standards, return to the substance: Is the criticism accurate? If so, acknowledge it. If not, why not — what specific evidence or argument demonstrates that the criticism misses the mark? The Berean approach (Acts 17:11) requires examining the evidence even when the messenger is flawed.
Consider what the tu quoque deflection reveals about the strength of the original position
Ask: If I find myself reaching for a tu quoque response, does that suggest I do not have a ready answer to the substantive criticism?
The tu quoque is often a sign that a substantive response is not available in the moment. Recognizing this is valuable self-knowledge: it identifies where further study, reflection, or honest acknowledgment of difficulty is needed. 'This is a hard question and I need to think about it more carefully' is more honest than deflection, and more productive.
Apply the same standard to your own tradition that you would apply to others
Ask: If I were encountering this problem in a different tradition, how would I expect its defenders to respond honestly?
The remedy for tu quoque is not the suppression of all comparative criticism but the application of consistent standards. Ask what honest, rigorous engagement with this criticism would look like if it came from within your own tradition rather than from outside it. The answer to that question is the response the criticism deserves.