The Problem with the Middle Ground
This summer, my nephew came to visit me. He flew in from a different state to introduce me to his favorite video game, the now hit HBO series Last of Us. The purpose of the game, for those who are unfamiliar with it and have only encountered it as the TV series, is to help players come to understand there isn’t always a clear good guy and bad guy. Sometimes, people are just complicated, and individuals are not the sum of their various parts. And this, I admit, is summarizing it terribly…
Still, playing that game with my nephew last summer changed the way I looked at the world and those in it. Part of what changed me, though, were the late night discussions I had with my nephew, where we covered everything from relationships to gender politics, from poverty to the downfalls of capitalism. Throughout those discussions, I often found myself taking a hard-line opinion. My nephew, on the other hand, balked at my extremity and often argued for moderation.
After I finished the game and my nephew flew home, I spent months thinking about this experience. I often wondered, was it more ethical to try to take a middle ground approach to most things in life?
Ultimately, I came to decide that no, it is not.
But first, let me start with this: I teach argumentation in English courses at the college level. Every semester, I carefully discuss the various argument fallacies that students will run into. There is one, though, that keeps cropping up among my Gen Z students, and which I have repeatedly run into among influencers, podcast-owning “thought leaders,” and (in)famous TikTokkers. The latin phrase for this fallacy is argumentum ad temperantiam, which literally means “an argument for moderation.”
The Fallacy of Moderation
The fallacy of moderation, also known as the false compromise fallacy, occurs when it is assumed that the truth must always lie somewhere in between two extremes, usually presented on a continuum of opinions, and that the middle ground must always be the correct position. This fallacy assumes that a compromise between two opposing viewpoints must be the most reasonable, fair, or logical position.
The problem is that this idea, which sounds entirely reasonable on the surface, remains a fallacy. Indeed, the fallacy of moderation is flawed for several reasons:
First, truth is rarely somewhere in the middle. The very purpose of an argument is to prove your position to be the correct one, and to disprove the other position. This fallacy, though, assumes both sides of an argument are equally valid, which may not be the case. One side may be based on sound reasoning and evidence, while the other may be based on fallacies or biases.
As an example, consider a debate about the safety of a certain food additive. One side argues that the additive is harmful to human health and should be banned, while the other side argues that it is safe and should continue to be used.
A person who commits the fallacy of moderation might suggest that the solution is to find a middle ground between these two positions, such as allowing the use of the additive in limited amounts. However, this compromise may not be the most effective solution for the problem at hand.
After all, who would be happy to have just a little arsenic in their food? Or just a little radiation exposure without their knowledge?
In this case, the fallacy of moderation leads to a false compromise that not only doesn’t accurately represent the scientific consensus on what is and is not safe for public health, it fails to recognize that compromise can still cause damage.
Second, because this fallacy depends on the existence of two opposing ideas, it often falls into the problem common with all dialectics: it fails to consider the possibility that the correct answer may lie outside the range of the two positions being considered. There may be other alternatives or perspectives that have not been taken into account.
For example, suppose there is a debate about how to address the problem of climate change. One side argues for reducing carbon emissions through government regulations and incentives, while the other side argues for investing in new technologies such as carbon capture and storage.
While both of these options may be valid, there may be other alternatives or perspectives that have not been considered. For example, some experts argue that planting more trees and preserving existing forests could be an effective way to sequester carbon and mitigate the effects of climate change.
Furthermore, there may be political or economic barriers to implementing either of the two proposed solutions, such as resistance from industries that rely on fossil fuels or lack of public support for government regulations.
In this case, the answer may lie outside of the two options being debated, and other alternatives or perspectives may need to be considered to address the problem effectively.
Finally, the fallacy of moderation can also lead to a false sense of compromise, where neither side is truly satisfied, and the solution does not actually address the underlying issues.
Suppose there is a political debate between two candidates, one who advocates for increasing taxes to fund social programs and the other who advocates for cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth.
A person who commits the fallacy of moderation might suggest that the solution is to find a middle ground between these two positions, such as implementing a moderate tax increase or a small tax cut. However, this compromise may not be the most effective solution for the problem at hand because it fails to actually address the underlying issues of wealth disparity, race, socioeconomic, and other barriers. Because it does not address any of the underlying issues, this compromise will likely not lead to the best outcomes.
Finding Truth
Years ago, frustrated with some personal issues in my life, I found myself in an hours-long discussion with a close friend. My friend is thoughtful, brilliant, and extremely well-read. He was convinced that the way to truth was to give both sides of an argument equal weight and then, with careful consideration, to find a place in the middle.
At the time, I remember feeling deeply frustrated with this approach — not only because it directly challenged my own strongly held opinions — but because I believed then, as I do now, that something significant is lost when we compromise to the middle view. And, indeed, while compromise and finding middle ground can be valuable in some situations, in argumentation the fallacy of moderation remains problematic because it assumes that the middle ground must always be the correct position, which is clearly not necessarily the case.
And, indeed, this was not the first time I have run into this opinion. It is something I have asked myself for years, and it is something that has colored many of my romantic, familial, and platonic relationships. I have spent significant time trying to offer empathy, to see their perspective and my own, and to find the truth of the experience somewhere in the middle.
And certainly, from the perspective of empathy, I think there is an argument to be made for moderation. Just as in Last of Us, it is easy to see that all of us are human; we all make mistakes. We all need the reminder that one terrible choice does not make us an entirely good or bad person.
But empathy itself doesn’t ask us to find a middle ground. It asks us to understand the perspective of the other person, to see their perspective as morally justifiable, to recognize that they, too, may be doing the best they can with the tools they have available to them.
Does that mean, in a fight with a romantic partner, the truth lies somewhere in the middle? No. Rather, it means that both partners are experiencing their own, separate truths of that moment — perhaps, for instance, one thinks the other is being too harsh, but the other thinks they’re being entirely too patient given the original stimulus. Understanding where the other person is coming from doesn’t mean the truth of the experience is somewhere in the middle; rather, it means being open to the idea that there can be many truths at once.
To be clear, this is not an argument for moral relativism, but is rather the point that empathy allows for a space of expansion of understanding and possible truths. On the other hand, the fallacy of moderation runs counter to this, instead narrowing the only possible truth down into a singular middle-ground.
However, this is important: empathy is not argumentation.
A good argument will include an understanding of others’ viewpoints, but arguments are less about expansion and more about a search for truth. This means that, whether we want to believe it or not, the truth is rarely in the middle. There will usually be a perspective that is the more correct or the more ethical or even the more useful argument. And what’s important, ultimately, is that when we consider what position to take, we seek out the position with the most evidence, the best rationale, the cleanest research, and, yes, the greatest empathy for others’ differing experiences. What’s important is to recognize which position is the more truthful, moral, and ethical, and prioritizes the betterment of humanity more often, effectively, and empathetically, and then to choose that position.
