Argument to moderation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources. (April 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct. The middle ground is often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views that are deeply entrenched. While an outcome that accommodates both parties to some extent is more desirable than an outcome that pleases nobody, it is not necessarily correct.

The problem with the false compromise fallacy is that it implies that both extremes are always wrong, that only the middle ground is correct. This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally any position can be invalidated by presenting one which is radically opposite, thus forcing the compromise closer to the desired conclusion. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton Window Theory

[edit] Examples

• The concept of neutrality during wars, or the various third way economic movements can sometimes be considered an argument for taking the middle ground.

• "Opinions on abortion range from banning it altogether to allowing it on demand; thus the correct view is restricted abortions."

• The potential outcome of the Judgement of Solomon in the Old Testament — when confronted with two women who each claimed the same baby to be their own — that the baby be cut in half and each purported mother given half. This was of course a plan to determine the true mother, but had it actually come down to cutting the baby in half, it would have been done on the false pretense that half for one, half for the other — that is to say, the middle ground — would have been a reasonable decision for the parties involved.

• "On the one hand, we have the Theory of Evolution, and on the other, we have the theory of Intelligent design. We should teach the controversy -- give both viewpoints equal time and consideration, rather than preferring one over the other."

[edit] External links

• I Drew This, Wednesday, August 15, 2007. (An example of the middle ground fallacy.)
• ChangingMinds.org

v • d • e Fallacies of relevance General Absurdity • Accident • Ad nauseam • Argument from ignorance • Argument from silence • Argumentum ad populum • Base rate fallacy • Compound question • Fallacy of many questions • Argument to moderation • Naturalistic fallacy • Proof by assertion • Irrelevant conclusion • Special pleading • Straw man • Style over substance fallacy • Two wrongs make a right Appeals to emotion Fear • Flattery • Nature • Novelty • Pity • Ridicule • Repugnance • Spite Genetic fallacies Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) • Appeal to authority • Appeal to motive • Appeal to tradition • Appeal to wealth • Appeal to poverty • Association fallacy • Bulverism • Chronological snobbery • Ipsedixitism • Poisoning the well • Appeal to Etymology • Reductio ad Hitlerum Appeals to consequences Appeal to force • Wishful thinking