Skip to content
Essay Writing
Extended Papers
Business Writing
Nursing Writing
Other Writing Tips

Moral Equivalence Fallacy (+ Examples)

Basics
Types
Techniques
Fallacies
Sample Essays
Moral Equivalence Fallacy
The moral equivalence fallacy, also known as false equivalence, occurs when two distinct actions or situations are considered to be morally equal or equivalent when, in fact, they are not. It involves comparing two things that differ significantly in terms of their moral implications, severity, or consequences, and treating them as if they are equally wrong or right. It is a type of ethical/moral fallacy.

Recap on Fallacies in Arguments

  • Fallacies in arguments are classified either by the specific flaws they exhibit – formal, informal, cognitive, inductive, and deductive; – or by the primary aspect of human persuasion that they target – logical, emotional, and ethical/moral.
  • It is important to note that these classifications are not exclusive, and a specific type of fallacy can fall in different classes. i.e. Ad Hominem fallacies are classified as both ethical and logical, depending on the intent and purpose of the argument.
  • Identifying and avoiding fallacies is crucial in ensuring the validity of an argument.

Identifying Moral Equivalence Fallacy in Arguments

The moral equivalence fallacy can obscure important moral distinctions, hinder meaningful discussions about ethics, and lead to a false sense of equivalency between actions or situations that warrant different moral judgments. It is crucial to carefully evaluate and compare the specific ethical dimensions and consequences of different actions before asserting their moral equivalence, more so when writing debate speeches and formulating Rogerian arguments.To identify a moral equivalence fallacy, you can look for the following characteristics in an argument:

  1. Comparison of dissimilar actions or situations: The fallacy involves comparing two actions or situations that are fundamentally different in terms of their moral implications, severity, or consequences. Pay attention to whether the actions being compared are truly comparable or if they involve distinct contexts, degrees of harm, or moral considerations.
  2. Ignoring relevant differences: The fallacy overlooks or downplays significant distinctions between the actions or situations being compared. It fails to acknowledge key factors that contribute to the moral assessment of each action, such as intent, scale, consequences, or underlying principles.
  3. Oversimplification: The fallacy oversimplifies complex moral issues by treating them as if they have the same moral weight or significance. It ignores the nuances and complexities of the ethical considerations involved in order to draw a false equivalency.
  4. Disregard for context: The fallacy ignores the specific context, circumstances, or specificities of the actions being compared. It fails to account for the different factors that might influence the moral evaluation of each action or situation.
  5. Lack of proportionality: The fallacy fails to recognize and account for the varying degrees of moral seriousness or consequences associated with the actions being compared. It treats actions that may differ significantly in terms of harm, impact, or violation of ethical principles as if they are equally wrong or right.
  • By being aware of these characteristics and carefully examining the reasoning behind the comparison, you can identify instances of moral equivalence fallacy and better evaluate the moral assessments being made in an argument.

Examples Illustrating Moral Equivalence Fallacy in Arguments

By recognizing the distinctions in motives, methods, and consequences, we can avoid falling into the moral equivalence fallacy and make more nuanced moral evaluations of different types of arguments. Below are some illustrative examples:

  1. Vandalizing public property is just as bad as corporate fraud.
    • Person A (Fallacious): “Vandalizing public property is just as bad as corporate fraud. Both involve breaking the law and should be condemned equally.”
    • Person B (Valid Argument): “While both actions are wrong, they have different moral implications. Corporate fraud can harm many people, undermine trust in institutions, and have severe economic consequences. Vandalism, on the other hand, is generally less harmful and primarily affects physical property.”

    In this example, Person A commits the moral equivalence fallacy by asserting that vandalizing public property and corporate fraud are equally morally wrong. However, Person B recognizes that these actions have different moral implications, severity, and consequences.
    Corporate fraud has broader and more significant societal impacts, potentially affecting many individuals, whereas vandalism typically has more localized and limited effects.

  2. Lying about your age on a dating profile is just as morally wrong as cheating on your spouse.
    • Person A (Fallacious): “Lying about your age on a dating profile is just as morally wrong as cheating on your spouse. Both involve deception and betrayal.”
    • Person B (Valid Argument): “While both actions involve dishonesty, they are not morally equivalent. Cheating on a spouse involves a breach of trust and a violation of a committed relationship, which can cause deep emotional pain and harm to the individuals involved. Lying about your age on a dating profile, while deceitful, is not on the same level of moral gravity and does not have the same relational consequences.”

    In this example, Person A commits the moral equivalence fallacy by asserting that lying about one’s age on a dating profile is morally equivalent to cheating on a spouse. Person B counters this fallacy by highlighting the significant differences in terms of the harm caused and the impact on relationships.
    While both actions involve deception, cheating on a spouse involves a profound betrayal of trust within a committed partnership, potentially leading to the breakdown of the relationship and emotional distress for those involved. Lying about one’s age on a dating profile, on the other hand, may involve minor misrepresentation but does not typically result in the same level of emotional harm or relational damage.

  3. Protesting against racial injustice is just as morally wrong as engaging in violent riots.
    • Person A (Fallacious): “Protesting against racial injustice is just as morally wrong as engaging in violent riots. Both involve breaking the law and causing disruptions.”
    • Person B (Valid Argument): “While both actions may involve breaking the law, they are not morally equivalent. Protesting against racial injustice is an exercise of free speech and a legitimate means of expressing grievances and advocating for change. Violent riots, on the other hand, involve the destruction of property, harm to innocent people, and undermine the overall message of the protest.”

    In this example, Person A commits the moral equivalence fallacy by asserting that protesting against racial injustice and engaging in violent riots are morally equivalent. Person B counters this fallacy by highlighting the significant differences between the two actions.
    Peaceful protests, aimed at addressing systemic injustices, are protected forms of expression and have the potential to bring about positive social change. Violent riots, however, involve unlawful and destructive behavior that causes harm to individuals and communities, often overshadowing the underlying cause and undermining the effectiveness of peaceful protests.

  4. Eating meat is just as morally wrong as killing humans.
    • Person A (Fallacious): “Eating meat is just as morally wrong as killing humans. Both involve taking lives and causing harm.”
    • Person B (Valid Argument): “While both actions involve taking lives, they are not morally equivalent. Killing humans is a grave violation of the fundamental right to life and is universally condemned. However, eating meat, while it involves taking animal lives, is a complex ethical issue with various considerations, including cultural practices, personal health, and environmental impact. Comparing the two undermines the significant moral value placed on human life.”

    In this example, Person A commits the moral equivalence fallacy by asserting that eating meat and killing humans are morally equivalent actions. Person B points out that there are significant differences in terms of the moral status attributed to human life compared to the lives of animals.
    While taking the life of a human being is generally considered an egregious violation, the ethical considerations surrounding the consumption of meat are more nuanced and involve a broader range of factors.

  5. Shoplifting a small item from a store is just as morally wrong as corporate embezzlement.
    • Person A (Fallacious): “Shoplifting a small item from a store is just as morally wrong as corporate embezzlement. Both involve stealing and dishonesty.”
    • Person B (Valid Argument): “While both actions involve dishonesty and taking something without permission, they are not morally equivalent. Corporate embezzlement involves manipulating financial systems, defrauding investors or shareholders, and causing significant financial harm to individuals and organizations. Shoplifting, on the other hand, typically involves taking a small item and may have minimal financial impact. The scale, intent, and consequences of these actions differ greatly.”

    In this example, Person A commits the moral equivalence fallacy by asserting that shoplifting a small item and corporate embezzlement are morally equivalent. Person B counters this fallacy by highlighting the significant differences in terms of the scale, intent, and consequences of the actions.
    Corporate embezzlement involves a more sophisticated and deliberate manipulation of financial systems, resulting in substantial harm to individuals and organizations. Shoplifting, although still morally wrong, typically involves minor theft that has limited impact.

  • By recognizing the distinctions in moral significance and the value attributed to different forms of life, we can avoid falling into the moral equivalence fallacy and engage in more informed ethical discussions.
  • Remember, classifications of fallacies in arguments are not exclusive.

Contents