Not the exact wording but the general premise behind it is a fair counter point in any disagreement. When someone is attempting to gain a higher moral authority, bringing up any hypocrisy is a reasonable thing to do. If pointing out hypocrisy is then dismissed, it is reasonable to assume the other person is not arguing in good faith and therefore should no be taken seriously.
I disagree for one that it is “in fact” a logical fallacy and also that their actions are immaterial to your actions. To make that counterpoint I would have had to have been aware that the person calling out my puppy kicking did in fact kick puppies. You can not say this knowledge is immaterial.
While you can still conclude that my puppy kicking is immoral it does not serve any purpose because the criticism came from someone equally immoral. I could even argue (if true) that I’m only kicking puppies because I saw them doing it and I didn’t know it was immoral.
“No you” is similar to “don’t throw stones in glass houses” and is a reasonable point.
You’re free to disagree, but it doesn’t change that you’re wrong. If the argument is that your puppy kicking is immoral, it is a fact that your accuser’s actions are immaterial. (Obviously we are presupposing that we agree what is immoral, and that puppy kicking fits that understanding.)
Assume there is Person A or Person B, the first kicks puppies, the second does not. Your argument holds that your puppy kicking would be immoral if Person B accused you, but somehow not immoral if Person A accuses you. That’s obviously not the case; therefore, person A’s actions are immaterial.
Tu Quoque is a fallacy because it does not actually address the argument made, it is a form of ad hominem attack. Given a valid argument, true premises will necessarily lead to a true conclusion. Fallacious arguments are not valid in structure; therefore you can’t know if your conclusion is true.
No this is not my argument, I see what you are saying and agree with the premise of actions being immoral prior to any conversation about them. My argument is more about someone arguing in bad faith than morality.
If person B (who does not kick puppies) accuses me of being immoral, then there is little debate that the criticism is appropriately being delivered in good faith. If person A (who also kicks puppies) accuses me of being immoral, then I am free to use the “no you” argument as a litmus test for whether or not the person is arguing in good faith. If they accept that their actions are also immoral then a good faith debate or conversation can appropriately take place. If they refuse to acknowledge their own puppy kicking is immoral then they can basically fuck off. I completely agree that neither conversation changes the fact kicking puppies is immoral no matter how fun (joke).
A hypocritical and dishonest interlocutor can still make a valid and sound argument. An ad hominem, whether Tu Quoque or otherwise, remains fallacious.
Whether you’re being called immoral by Person A or B doesn’t change the facts. Person A may be a bad person, they may not be the person you want to hear the argument from, but that doesn’t change that they’re right.
In propositional logic you only address one prong or aspect at a time. So using my example you could say yes, I am immoral for kicking puppies, but then by your logic, so are you. That wouldn’t be an ad hominem because you aren’t trying to invalidate their argument with your personal attack/logical argument.
Correct yes, I can see there are two ideas here. We both agree immorality is independent of conversation and no matter what happens in the conversation it will not make the immorality untrue. The point I am trying to articulate may be more whether or not it is appropriate for someone who is simultaneously kicking puppies to point out how immoral it is that I am kicking puppies, while refusing to acknowledge the immorality of their own puppy kicking from a social point of view. Thoughts?
Not particularly. Depends on the subject matter. For instance, a politician might be critical of current campaign finance laws being too lax, but still take advantage of said laws. In that situation it wouldn’t be hypocritical to say I want to change X, but until it changes, I’m following the same rules as everyone else.
Or maybe they are a hypocrite, I don’t know. They could be the worst person to raise the argument, but my only point was that it doesn’t invalidate the argument.