Jump to content

Argument to moderation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:


*The potential outcome of [[Solomon|King Solomon]]'s decree (in the [[Old Testament]]) — when confronted with two women who each claimed the same baby to be their own — that the baby be cut in half and each purported mother given half. This was of course a plan to determine the true mother, but had it actually come down to cutting the baby in half, it would have been done on the false pretense that half for one, half for the other — that is to say, the middle ground — would have been a reasonable decision for the parties involved.
*The potential outcome of [[Solomon|King Solomon]]'s decree (in the [[Old Testament]]) — when confronted with two women who each claimed the same baby to be their own — that the baby be cut in half and each purported mother given half. This was of course a plan to determine the true mother, but had it actually come down to cutting the baby in half, it would have been done on the false pretense that half for one, half for the other — that is to say, the middle ground — would have been a reasonable decision for the parties involved.

*''"On the one hand, we have the [[Evolution|Theory of Evolution]], and on the other, we have the theory of [[Intelligent Design]]. We should [[teach the controversy]] -- give both viewpoints equal time and consideration, rather than preferring one over the other."''


*''"Some would say that arsenic is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth is somewhere in between..."''
*''"Some would say that arsenic is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth is somewhere in between..."''

Revision as of 02:23, 13 February 2008

For other uses, see Middle Ground.

The middle ground logical fallacy (also called argumentum ad temperantiam) asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct. The middle ground is often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views that are deeply entrenched. While an outcome that accommodates both parties to some extent is more desirable than an outcome that pleases nobody, it is not necessarily correct.

Examples

  • The concept of neutrality during wars, or the various third way economic movements can sometimes be considered an argument for taking the middle ground.
  • "Opinions on abortion range from banning it altogether to allowing it on demand; thus the correct view is restricted abortions."
  • The potential outcome of King Solomon's decree (in the Old Testament) — when confronted with two women who each claimed the same baby to be their own — that the baby be cut in half and each purported mother given half. This was of course a plan to determine the true mother, but had it actually come down to cutting the baby in half, it would have been done on the false pretense that half for one, half for the other — that is to say, the middle ground — would have been a reasonable decision for the parties involved.
  • "Some would say that arsenic is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth is somewhere in between..."


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_to_moderation&oldid=191050353"