When I posted what I posted earlier I looked it up too. That's called the moral equivalence argument. That it's all right to falsely accuse someone of something, if what they did was equally bad. First of all, it is never right to falsely accuse anyone of anything. And second, maybe you're the only one who thinks it's just as bad too. I've heard of this in slander cases. Someone is wronged by someone, so they accuse them of something terrible. Shoplifting or kicking cats, for example. Because to them it seems like they deserve it. That actually came up, ironically at that hospital above I was at. A woman was picketing in front of the hospital because one of the doctors owed her money, she told one of the nurses in my program. The signs she was carrying said things like her boyfriend would rather put a bullet in the her kid's head, than pay the money he owed them. The nurse started talking to the other staff, loud enough so the lady picketing could hear. Maybe she had a legitimate claim against the doctor. Maybe he really did owe her money . But that didn't justify making outrageous and defamatory statements like that. Maybe to her it was all the same thing. But the law, when it comes to slander suits, would disagree. As I said, I've heard people say that lying and deceiving are sometimes justified. And then, only when the danger is clear and present. But falsely accusing people, and then ruining their reputation and punishing them for things they never did. That can never be right in any situation, no matter what your reasons are.
Yeah, I looked it up like I said. The term is moral equivalence. (That term was invented during the Cold War BTW. The more general term is false equivalence, saying any two things are equal. Like saying, dogs make good pets. And so do Alligators.) I often hear conservatives do this. But I am not saying they are the only ones. But they often do, especially with moral issues like homosexuality. One conservative actress was on Real Time with Bill Maher once. And she said, men having sex with men? Well, why don't we just as Fido if he wants to have sex too? IOW, comparing homosexuality with bestiality. Or homosexuality is often equated with pedophilia and men having sex with boys. I think we've all heard that one. But falsely accusing anyone, even if they are very evil, is just never justified. Although that can work in reverse too, ironically. Many liberals and radicals were being persecuted in the United States in the early 20th Century. They dared speak out and criticize the US government and its policies. And they dared say many of our policies, foreign and domestic, just weren't right. And that criticizing your country didn't make you a traitor. I think even most conservatives would agree with all of that. Oh, and they'd go on, don't believe the corporate media when they say Joseph Stalin was an evil man. That's just another corporate lie. Well, actually Joseph Stalin was an evil man, a very evil man. Between the early 1930s and his death in 1953, Joseph Stalin had more than a million of his own citizens executed. Millions more fell victim to forced labor in his camps. So false equivalency works both ways. People aren't guilty of every and any crime just because they are evil. They are only guilty of what they have done. And no one is perfect either, even if they seem very good and compassionate, even if they are. And this is especially true if you and they are on the same side. Like when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University in 2007, and one student asked him how gays were treated in his country. Because Ahmadinejad' visit to Columbia was controversial. But the students thought he might have shared at least some of their values, because they both opposed the Second Gulf War. And he famously replied, gays aren't mistreated in Iran, because we have none.
what is moral equivalence fallacy? AI Overview Learn more Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies The moral equivalence fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that compares two or more things that are different or unrelated to claim that one is just as bad or good as the other. It's a common tactic in political debate and can be used to obscure or downplay a subject's actions or beliefs. Here are some examples of the moral equivalence fallacy: Comparing littering to poaching and saying both should be punished equally Comparing the environmental impact of using plastic straws to industrial pollution Comparing a peaceful protest to a riot that occurred after a sports loss Comparing a long-discredited study on vaccines to the extensive evidence supporting their safety and efficacy The term "moral equivalence" is often used in political debate to deny that a moral comparison can be made between two sides in a conflict. It can also be used as a way to appear objective and detached while distorting issues. Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral. MORAL EQUIVALENCE / 'mər əl ı'kwıv ə ləns / noun 1. the logical error of claiming two very different actions are just as bad or good as each other.
