Moving the Goal Posts
A logical fallacy where an arguer demands more and more points to be addressed after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied, refusing to concede or accept the opponent's argument.
THE IDEA
Moving the Goal Posts
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points, after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied, refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.
Logical Form:
- Initial claim or objection raised.
- Opponent addresses it adequately.
- New, more demanding objection is raised.
- Demands keep changing instead of the original standard being applied.
- Original arguer never concedes.
Example #1:
Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality – a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Suppose Rob adequately answers that objection, but Ken moves to a new requirement without acknowledging the answer. Changing the subject alone would not prove that Rob’s answer was adequate. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request: to essentially prove that God does not exist. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.
Example #2:
In a debate about God’s existence, suppose an arguer makes one unanswered scientific question the decisive test. When that question is answered, the arguer substitutes another, such as the “origin of life”, without acknowledging the change in standard. That would illustrate moving the goal posts. Offering several independent arguments, or revising a belief openly, is not enough by itself to establish the fallacy.
Exception:
An argument may legitimately contain several requirements. To assess the fallacy, identify the original standard, including claims such as “has to be”, “must” or “required for”, and ask whether it has been changed after being met. A new relevant objection can be reasonable if the arguer acknowledges what the previous answer established.
When to use it
In a political debate, one side demands evidence for a specific policy outcome, then after evidence is provided, demands evidence for another unrelated outcome, repeatedly raising the bar.
During a scientific discussion, a skeptic asks for proof of climate change, then after multiple lines of evidence are presented, asks for proof of each specific prediction, and then asks for proof of the exact date of a future event.
In a personal argument about household responsibilities, one person lists tasks they did today, only to be told they didn't do tasks from yesterday, and then from last week, etc.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Objective Morality Debate
Ken sets a requirement for accepting an argument about objective morality. Rob meets it, but Ken adds another without acknowledging that the first was met. Repeating this pattern illustrates the fallacy; simply disagreeing with Rob would not.
Argument for God's Existence
An arguer treats the “origin of life” as the decisive test in a debate about God, then replaces it with a different test after accepting an answer. The changed standard is the relevant feature, rather than the religious subject itself.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
When was the last time you shifted your argument to a new requirement after your opponent satisfied your previous one?
In an ongoing debate, how can you recognize when you or your opponent is moving the goal posts instead of addressing the core issue?
What strategies could you use to keep a discussion focused and avoid the gravity game tactic?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies