Necessary Equivalence in a Controversial Debate
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I've seen this argument come up quite a lot in political discourse. Effectively two sides engage in a similar form of behaviour, this is observed by the speaker, and a dissenting voice will object to the comparison by saying that the two cannot be compared on a moral basis. Here's another one of my famous examples:
Maverick: Anti-racism activists attacked Pritchard Bencher at an Ignite the Right rally yesterday. I swear, these anti-racists can be just as overzealous as the racists at times - both engage in acts of violence against the opposition to silence them. We shouldn't carry out violence against people, simply because we disagree with their beliefs.
Rashida: Hey. There's no moral equivalence between anti-racists and racists, so you can't compare their actions. The protesters were arguing for hate. The counterprotesters were acting in good faith by sending a clear signal that hate is not allowed on our streets.
In my mind, Rashida is guilty of missing the point since Maverick was not trying to compare the groups on moral grounds, but on the way they behave in public - and he observed an overlap in their behaviour.
Another example.
Bethany: New Atheists' aggressive promotion of irreligion and secularism is just like religious fundamentalists' aggressive promotion of their faith.
Thomas: They aren't the same. New Atheists aggressively fight for ideas based on rationality and science, while fundies rely on dogma.
Here, it is Bethany who in my eyes is committing the fallacy, of false equivalence.
What do you think? Is bringing up 'moral equivalence' always right?
Answers
1
There's no moral equivalence between anti-racists and racists, so you can't compare their actions.
This is both untrue and nonsensical. There is no "rule" stating that things cannot be compared for any reason. This reminds me of all the people (virtually) screaming how we cannot compare COVID-19 to the flu, then continue by saying something such as "COVID-19 is far more deadly." It's almost funny. When people say "you can't compare..." what they often mean is "After comparing, I find stark differences." The reason this is a problem is because the reaction "You can't compare the COVID-19 to the flu!" has become a mantra and a barrier to discussion, even when attempting to point out how much worse COVID-19 is compared to the flu (sorry for the digression).
Rashida seems to be suggesting that hatred and violence is justified in the one scenario but not in the other. This is more opinion than anything else.
In your second example, Bethany is making a claim of equivalence and Thomas is refuting that claim. Before calling false equivalence, however, I would want to ask Bethany HOW they the are the same (in what way). They are the same in some ways, but not in others. When we say one thing is "just like" another thing, it is always the case that there are differences, otherwise it would be the same thing. So I would be willing to cut Bethany a little slack as long as she responds with ways in which they are alike:
"Both New Atheists and Fundies are passionate about what they do or do not believe." - okay
"Both New Atheists and Fundies are dogmatic in their beliefs" - not okay
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course