Something Thoughtful

Nicholas Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to literature, history, popular culture and the arts, or just life in general. You are free to agree or disagree with him.

 

TU QUOQUE (or “WHATABOUTERY”)

There is a moral standard which I reasoned my way to quite a number of years ago. It goes like this “A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity, regardless of who commits it.” This may sound like a trite and obvious truism, but it is amazing how many people do not hold to this standard. I am wearily used to hearing people loudly denouncing or protesting against one major atrocity somewhere in the world, while justifying (or ignoring) another. Usually this is a matter of political bias, played along a Left-Right axis. “Your” atrocities (the atrocities of regimes of which you approve) are to be condemned as crimes against humanity. “My” atrocities (the atrocities of regimes of which I approve) are to be ignored or condoned or somehow justified on the grounds of necessity. I put up a posting on this matter some years ago, called Your Atrocitiesor Mine?

Not exactly the same topic, but closely allied to it, is what it’s now fashionable to call “whataboutery”, more fomally known as the “Tu Quoque” or “you too” argument. The term “whataboutery” is not as new as you might think . It was first used in the 1950s, when Americans pointed out that if the old Soviet Union were condemned for its totalitarianism and failure to respect human rights, somebody would be bound to pipe up “Well what about the United States where blacks get lynched?” The sturdy old Tu Quoque was often pulled out during the Cold War.

Now it takes such forms as “Vladimir Putin is a demagogue looking to make himself dictator for life.” “Well what about Donald Trump?”

Or

“American policing disproportionately punishes blacks.” “Well what about the concentration camps the Chinese are building for Muslims?”

In one sense this is often just the pot calling the kettle black. The Tu Quoque argument is an attempt to justify evil deeds by pointing to evil deeds of which your opponent is either ignorant or of which your opponent tacitly approves. But looked at rationally, it is always a flawed argument. After all, it admits, implicitly, that what you are attempting to defend is as bad as what you are drawing attention to. You are saying, in effect, that B is justified because A is as bad as B.

Schoolground wisdom says that two wrongs don’t make a right. Tu Quoque merely says one thing is bad and here is another thing that’s bad.

So let’s condemn both.