Et Tu Quoque, Carly?

Former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina on Thursday blasted Apple CEO Tim Cook's opposition to Indiana's religious freedom law as "hypocrisy."

Fiorina, a potential 2016 GOP presidential contender, said Cook had a double standard and cited Apple's operations in other countries with controversial laws about gays and women in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

“When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina argued. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that."

In the days after Apple CEO Tim Cook penned his WP editorial condemning the Indiana law, Carly Fiorina was not the only one to hurl the charge of hypocrisy at him. But she may have been the most high profile person to do so.

As you can see from the text above, the charge is that because Apple does business in countries that discriminate against homosexuals, Tim Cook has no right to criticize a law that would discriminate against homosexuals.

The first thing we need to recognize is the classic tu quoque nature of this charge. I just recently went through the tu quoque fallacy so I won’t go into excruciating details except to say that I commit the tu quoque fallacy when I accuse someone of being a hypocrite rather than deal with the argument they have put forth.

Now the reason this is a fallacy is that even if the person making the charge is hypocritical, this does not undermine the charge itself, which deserves to be considered by itself regardless of who brings it forth.

So the first thing to note is that this is about as clear an instance of a tu quoque fallacy as you are going to find.

Second, it is important to note that if there is a legitimate charge of hypocrisy this ought to be taken seriously from a rhetorical point of view, and the maker of the argument, though not the argument itself, deserves criticism.

But there is no hypocrisy here. I am a hypocrite if I say x and do not x, or say x in one place but say not x in another. But neither of these scenarios apply with Tim Cook.

He did not say he is against discrimination in Indiana but act to support discrimination by selling Apple products in China.Instead, in both cases he should be seen as further equal treatment of homosexuals as far as in his power. In Indiana, he merely pointed out the discriminatory nature of the law. The editorial stated that the Indiana law and laws like it go against the principles this country was founded on and are bad for business. And as Republicans have long argued, by engaging with repressive regimes and even doing business there we can best spread American values.

We can see this by asking Would Apple withdrawing from China really change China’s behavior in any way? Highly doubtful. But can the business community united change the law in Indiana. It seems so.

So both his stance about the Indiana law and the fact that Apple does business in China are consistent with a concern for freedom and equality for all human beings.

And Carly should know better.