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

Appeal to Normality

Description: Using social norms to determine what is good or bad.  It is the idea that normality is the standard of goodness.  This is fallacious because social norms are not the same as norms found in nature or norms that are synonymous with the ideal function of a created system.  The conclusion, "therefore, it is good" is often unspoken, but clearly implied.

Logical Forms:

X is considered normal behavior.
Therefore, X is good behavior.

X is not considered normal behavior.
Therefore, X is bad behavior.

X is considered normal behavior.
Therefore, we should strive for X (normality).

Example #1:

I am only slightly obese.  That is perfectly normal here in America.

Explanation:  The person is correct in that being slightly obese is considered normal in America.  In no way is this a good thing by virtually any measure of goodness.  Athletes and those who make their health and fitness a priority are far from normal, but viewing that level of health and fitness as bad is clearly fallacious.

Example #2:

Why doesn't Tim get a real job like normal people instead of trying to launch that Internet business from home?

Explanation:  Tim is not like normal people when it comes to work—he is part of the minority who dream big and follow their dreams.  Tim might make it big, or he might not.  Without the Tim's of the world, the normal people would have no place to get a "real job."

Exception: There are circumstances where eccentric or unusual behavior is clearly problematic. These are situations where even slight deviations from the norm have been demonstrated to have negative results, and the implied “badness” of the behavior needs no justification.

My dad got arrested again sunbathing naked in a public park while tripping on acid... during a snowstorm. That’s not normal.

Another exception is when "normal" is used in such a way to balance negative social behavior.  For example, a mother may yell at her misbehaving child to "act normal" at a school open house.  There is no implication here that being "normal" is the ideal behavior, just an immediate and realistic improvement from the current behavior.

Tip: For the most part, being "normal" or "average" is nothing to be proud of.  Be better than average.


This is an original logical fallacy named by the author.

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