Tu quoque

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tu quoque argument ( Latin tu quoque 'also you') is the argumentative attempt to reject an opponent's position or thesis by comparing it with the opponent's behavior. It can be understood as a variant of the argument ad hominem and is used in particular against moral assessments or regulations.

example
A: "You should drink less."
B: "You drink too much yourself!"

analysis

With the tu quoque argument, the moral justification to make an assertion or rule is called into question according to the principle that a behavior or a view that someone approves in himself or in others is neither generally nor in individual cases reproached or reprimanded by others may be rejected. In a second step it is asserted that the assertion made is false because it was wrongly made, or at least has to be withdrawn and may not be used in the further course of the argument.

This second step of the Tu quoque argument is a logical fallacy , since the mere lack of moral justification for a claim or assertion does not result in its falsity. But even the moral justification cannot be effectively disputed if the person to whom the argument is countered has changed his mind or behavior for good reason or can assert an exception. The figure of argument is particularly suitable for undermining moral authority . A Tu quoque argument is therefore all the more effective the more the opponent has presented himself as morally superior.

Tu quoque objection right

A tu quoque can, however, be appropriate when it comes to the justification of a claim, provided that this is justified under private law . According to German jurisprudence, a tu quoque objection to claims by the other contracting party may be permissible if the other party has not adhered to a contract. Because of the synallagmatic link between performance and consideration, the breach of contract by one party affects their claims from the contract. In international law , too , the tu quoque argument in connection with the prevailing principle of reciprocity plays a considerable role. The general situation in public law , including criminal law , is different - also in view of the central state authority - there is no right to equal treatment in the case of injustice .

The defense at the Nuremberg trials also used the argument ( see section “ Tu quoque argumentation ”).

See also

literature

  • Jonas Pfister: Tools of Philosophizing. Stuttgart, Reclam 2013 (Reclams Universal Library No. 19138), ISBN 978-3-15-019138-5 , p. 126 f.
  • Sienho Yee: The Tu Quoque Argument as a Defense to International Crimes, Prosecution or Punishment. Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Cumulative No. 5), 2004, pp. 87-134 ( PDF ).

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Douglas Walton : Ad hominem arguments (Studies in rhetoric and communication) . 4th edition. Tuscaloosa, Alabama University Press, Alabama 1998, ISBN 978-0-8173-0922-0 , pp. 2 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  2. ↑ a b Hubert Schleichert : How to discuss with fundamentalists without losing your mind . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2005, ISBN 978-3-406-42144-0 , p. 47 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  3. ↑ Hubert Schleichert: How to discuss with fundamentalists without losing your mind . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2005, ISBN 978-3-406-42144-0 , p. 74 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  4. ^ Gunther Teubner : Mutual breach of contract. Jurisprudence and dogmatics for the exclusion of rights after one's own breach of contract. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1975, ISBN 3-166-37411-6 , p. 108.
  5. ↑ Lothar Philips: About relations - In legal life and in norm logic. In: Rechtstheorie 1981, supplement 3, pp. 123, 127.