Argument to Moderation
The argument to moderation fallacy asserts that a compromise between two extreme positions must be correct, ignoring that truth or correctness may lie entirely with one side or neither.
THE IDEA
Argument to Moderation
Also known as: argumentum ad temperantiam, middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy, golden mean fallacy, fallacy of the mean, splitting the difference
Description: Asserting that given any two positions, there exists a compromise between them that must be correct.
Logical Form:
- Person 1 says X.
- Person 2 says Y.
- Therefore, the correct position is somewhere in between X and Y.
Example #1:
Someone says, "This car is a piece of junk; it's not worth more than $1." Another says, "This is the best car ever made; I wouldn't sell it for less than a million dollars." A third person says, "The car is worth exactly $500,000."
Explanation: Suppose $20k is a reasonable book value for the car and $1 is an implausibly low offer. The value of about $20k needs support from comparable sales or the car’s condition; merely stating $1 and $1,000,000 does not establish a midpoint as fair.
Example #2:
"I believe in angels, demons, and God." "I don't believe in any of that." "Maybe there is something like spirits but not a personal God."
Explanation: The third position needs its own supporting reasons. Its location between belief and disbelief provides no evidence that it is true. A compromise can help people reach an agreement, but agreement does not settle a factual question.
Exception: A midpoint may be the “correct” value, including when the proposed extremes are equally distant from it. That conclusion still needs evidence independent of its position between the proposals.
Tip: If you know you are entering in a negotiation, be prepared to be low-balled, and don’t let those figures change your target figure going into the negotiation.
When to use it
When evaluating arguments in a heated debate, check if a proposed middle ground is logically justified or just a fallacy.
During a negotiation over price, beware of anyone suggesting a compromise based on extremes that are irrelevant to the true value.
In group decision-making, avoid settling on a 'happy medium' unless there's evidence it's the best option, not just a compromise.
When analyzing political discourse, identify instances where moderates claim the 'sensible center' but may be committing this fallacy.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Car Valuation
Someone says, 'This car is a piece of junk; it's not worth more than $1.' Another says, 'This is the best car ever made; I wouldn't sell it for less than a million dollars.' A third person says, 'The car is worth exactly $500,000.' The explanation shows that the car's true value was around $20k, not the compromise midpoint.
Belief in the Supernatural
Person A believes in angels, demons, and God. Person B believes in none. A third suggests a compromise: 'Maybe there is something like spirits but not a personal God.' The fallacy lies in assuming truth must lie between the two positions, when in reality one position may be entirely correct.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you recall a time you assumed a compromise was correct simply because it seemed fair? How did that work out?
In a current debate you're following, is there an attempt to split the difference? Does that compromise actually reflect truth or just convenience?
When negotiating, how can you recognize an argument to moderation and avoid being swayed by a false middle ground?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies