Ad hominem vs tu quoque
Last reviewed:
Both aim at the person. Only one of them says “you do it too.”
Ad hominem
An ad hominem answers a claim by attacking the person who made it, instead of the reasons. A fact about the speaker is relevant only when it actually bears on the evidence, such as a shown conflict of interest or a record of false reports on this subject.
In a meeting someone says, “Ignore Nia’s proposal for the library hours. She was late last week.” Lateness may matter to reliability in general. It does not show that the proposed hours are a bad idea.
Open the cardTu quoque
Tu quoque answers a criticism by saying the critic does the same thing. Hypocrisy may hurt someone’s standing. It does not show that the criticism is false. A bad example can still state a true rule.
“You say I should not speed, but you were fined last year, so speeding is fine.” The fine may embarrass the critic. It does not make speeding safe or legal.
Open the cardHow to tell them apart
Ad hominem treats a fact about the speaker as if it replaced the argument. The insult, the motive, or the biography may be worth knowing. It is not, by itself, a reason the conclusion is false.
Tu quoque is a narrower personal move. It answers a criticism by charging the speaker with the same fault. The charge can be true and the advice can still stand.
If you would still need an answer after the personal fact was removed, the personal fact was not the argument. That test is the one both cards ask you to use.
FAQ
What is Ad hominem?
An ad hominem answers a claim by attacking the person who made it, instead of the reasons. A fact about the speaker is relevant only when it actually bears on the evidence, such as a shown conflict of interest or a record of false reports on this subject.
What is Tu quoque?
Tu quoque answers a criticism by saying the critic does the same thing. Hypocrisy may hurt someone’s standing. It does not show that the criticism is false. A bad example can still state a true rule.
How do you tell Ad hominem from Tu quoque?
Ad hominem treats a fact about the speaker as if it replaced the argument. The insult, the motive, or the biography may be worth knowing. It is not, by itself, a reason the conclusion is false.