Ortlund, Heschmeyer, and the U2 Fallacy

Lately, I've seen several instances where people accuse others of committing a fallacy they aren't actually guilty of—sometimes even using the fancy Latin names.

Lately, I've seen several instances where people accuse others of committing a fallacy they aren't actually guilty of—sometimes even using the fancy Latin names. For example, Joe Heschmeyer recently accused Gavin Ortlund (for what it’s worth, I like both of these gentlemen quite a bit, and obviously, I’m overall on Team Catholic in this debate) of committing the tu quoque fallacy, or the "you too" fallacy. The context was a discussion on discerning essential doctrine: Catholics often press Protestants on this issue—rightly, in my opinion—and Gavin’s response was something along the lines of, "Hey, you guys have this problem too."

Joe called this a fallacy—specifically the tu quoque (or "you too") fallacy.

But is this a fallacy? It depends. The tu quoque can be a fallacious response, but whether it actually is depends on the broader context. If someone is merely pointing out hypocrisy or inconsistency without addressing the original argument, that would indeed be fallacious. In such cases, saying "you have this problem too" doesn't refute the claim being made—it simply diverts attention without dealing with the substance of the argument. Put differently, if it’s used merely as a tactic for diversion or deflection, then yes, it’s a problem. A classic example (and one Joe uses) might go something like this:

Parent: "You shouldn’t smoke, dear daughter, it’s unhealthy, as studies X, Y, and Z show." Response: "But Mom, you started smoking when you were fourteen. Don’t be a hypocrite!"

However, tu quoque is not always fallacious. Often, the context of these discussions is something like: "You should become Catholic (or at least consider Catholicism) because your system has a serious doctrinal identification issue." In this case, it’s perfectly legitimate to respond, "Well, no, because your system has this problem too." Here, the response isn’t merely pointing out the plank in the accuser’s eye while they mention the speck in yours—it’s challenging the more fundamental claim that one system offers a solution to the problem in question. If both systems have the same flaw, then that flaw cannot serve as a legitimate reason for conversion. Moreover, it should be clear that Catholics only raise this objection—or rather, they only should raise this objection—because they believe the issue does not apply to them (which, ultimately, I think is correct, but I’ll save that for another time).

In short, the legitimacy of a tu quoque response depends on the context: when it's just deflecting without refuting the argument, it’s fallacious; but when it instead attacks a claim of superiority or problem-solving, it can be a quite reasonable reply.

P.S. Perhaps something we can all agree on, is that Bad is the best U2 song.