The Fallacy of the Middle Ground

The middle ground fallacy, also known as the false compromise or the gray fallacy, is a
logical fallacy in which a compromise between two positions is claimed to be the correct one,
without any evidence or reasoning to support it. This fallacy is often used to justify a position
that is not supported by the evidence, or to avoid taking a stance on a controversial issue. It is
important to evaluate claims and arguments based on the evidence and reasoning, rather than
simply accepting a compromise without examination.

The middle ground is a typical form of a logical fallacy - a mistake in thinking that
weakens the argument — in which a person claims that the proper conclusion must be someplace
between two conflicting arguments.

"My parents always told me that stealing is never okay, but my best friend says you can
always steal if you want to." So, taking both perspectives into account, it must sometimes be
acceptable.

This kind of reasoning needs to be corrected since it concludes purely with the fact that
something is the intersection of two lines. It does not provide us any reasonable grounds to
assume it is accurate regarding logic and arguments; merely choosing a position between two
false does not mean it is accurate, and the midst of truth and false is likewise false.
One important consideration is whether Middle Ground Fallacy assumes equal validity and
trustworthiness for both extreme perspectives. It ignores the possibility that one side has better
facts or arguments, resulting in an unfair compromise that dilutes the truth or maintains an unjust
status quo.

As well as both parties feeling dissatisfied with the outcome, false compromises can also prevent
a discussion from moving forward. Had the exploration of the difference in opinion continued
for longer, more evidence could have been presented and analyzed. By persevering, an
objectively better outcome might have been reached.

A false compromise can also dangerously speed up decision making. This is particularly
true if the compromise brings an abrupt end to a debate: hurriedly agreeing to a decision may
prevent you from considering second-order consequences. Luckily, there are ways you can avoid
falling into the worst pitfalls of the false compromise fallacy.

False compromises may seem benign, especially when attaining the proper solution is not
essential in daily life. However, a false compromise might be harmful when the issue under
discussion and the prospective conclusion are both critical.
Another hazard of the MG is that it encourages arguers to defend radical, extreme viewpoints,
expecting the audience to accept some of the arguer's assertions.

Suppose there is a debate between two people on whether or not to allow the sale of
sugary drinks in schools. One person argues that sugary drinks should be banned in schools
because they contribute to childhood obesity and other health problems. The other person argues
that sugary drinks should be allowed in schools because students should have the freedom to
make their own choices.

A person using the middle ground fallacy might suggest that a compromise is needed,
such as allowing the sale of sugary drinks in schools, but only in moderation and with limitations
on the amount of sugar allowed. This position assumes that the correct answer lies somewhere in
the middle of the two opposing positions, without any evidence or reasoning to support it. It also
ignores the fact that there may be a clear scientific consensus on the negative health effects of
sugary drinks, and that a compromise may not be the most appropriate solution to the problem.

The danger of the middle ground fallacy is that it can lead to a false sense of balance or
neutrality on an issue, even when one position has more evidence or logical support than the
other. By assuming that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two opposing positions,
without proper evaluation of the evidence, it can result in a failure to take a clear and decisive
stance on important issues.

This fallacy can also be used as a tactic to manipulate people or to avoid taking
responsibility for making difficult decisions. By suggesting a compromise solution, even if it is
not supported by evidence or reasoning, it can give the appearance of a reasonable and fair-
minded approach, while ignoring or downplaying the real concerns or risks associated with a
particular issue.

Furthermore, the middle ground fallacy can also prevent progress or change in important
areas, as it may discourage people from taking bold actions or advocating for clear solutions, in
favor of a compromise that does not address the underlying problems. Ultimately, it is important
to carefully evaluate the evidence and reasoning behind different positions, and to make
informed decisions based on this evaluation, rather than relying on a false sense of balance or
neutrality.

Assume an unethical arguer has sound proof that a 2% income tax rise would benefit the
state. She knows that her opponent will urge for no rise at all. She may be concerned that if she
supports a 2% rise, listeners will conclude that a more minor (say 1%) increase is preferable,
which she knows would be insufficient. As a result, she may be inclined to misrepresent her
findings and assume that a 4% increase is required. Fortunately, this is a simple mistake to avoid.
Remember that just because someone expresses a hypothesis, even a revolutionary idea, this
does not give proof for any conclusion. People who make the error do not listen to the
explanations given by either side to support their beliefs; instead, they believe that the truth is
somewhere in the center. Intellectual sloth causes the fallacy.

In conclusion, the middle ground fallacy is a logical fallacy in which a compromise

between two opposing positions is assumed to be the correct solution, without proper evaluation
of the evidence and reasoning behind the positions. This fallacy can lead to a false sense of
balance or neutrality on important issues, and can prevent progress or change by discouraging
bold actions or clear solutions. It is important to carefully evaluate the evidence and reasoning
behind different positions, and to make informed decisions based on this evaluation, rather than
relying on a false sense of balance or neutrality.

References:

Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto
Press.

Tindale, C. W. (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness:
Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Springer.

Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (Eds.). (2016). Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument
Analysis and Evaluation. Springer.

Jackson, S. J. (2016). Arguing as Communicative Interaction. Routledge.

Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, G. R. (2008). Argumentation and Critical Decision Making (8th
ed.). Pearson.