search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Argument to Moderation

argumentum ad temperantiam

(also known as: appeal to moderation, 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 A.

Person 2 says Z.

Therefore, somewhere around M must be correct.

Example #1:

So you are saying your car is worth $20k.  I think it is worth $1, so let’s just compromise and say it is worth $10k. (Assuming the car is worth $20k)

Explanation: The price of $20k was a reasonable book value for the car, where the price of $1 was an unreasonable extreme.  The fact is the car is worth about $20k -- thinking the car is worth $1 or $1,000,000, won’t change that fact[1].

Example #2:

Ok, I am willing to grant that there might not be angels and demons really floating around Heaven or hanging out in Hell, but you must grant that there has to be at least one God.  Is that a fair compromise?

Explanation: There is no compromise when it comes to truth.  Truth is truth.  If there are angels, demons, and God, there are angels, demons, and God.  If there aren’t, there aren’t.  Compromise and splitting the difference work fine in some cases, but not in determining truth.

Exception: When the two extremes are equally distanced from the “correct” value -- and there actually is a correct, or fair, value between the two proposed values.

So you are saying your car is worth $40k.  I think it is worth $1, so let’s just compromise and say it is worth $20k. (Assuming the car is worth $20k)

Tip: If you know you are entering into a negotiation, be prepared to be low-balled, and don’t let those figures change your target figure going into the negotiation. 

References:
 
This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.


[1] Worth, in this sense, has much to do with what someone is willing to pay, but for this example, let’s just ignore that detail—otherwise I would need to come up with another example.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book