When two actions or situations that differ significantly in moral or logical terms are presented as if they were of the same kind and equal in weight.
Definition:
This fallacy occurs when someone ignores the differing severity or nature of two behaviours, events, or policies and portrays them as morally equivalent, leading the audience to believe both are equally right or wrong. This is usually done to justify wrongful behaviour or to reduce accountability for it.
On the surface, this fallacy appears to appeal to “fairness” or “impartiality”, but in practice it undermines moral standards by disregarding the real differences in impact, intention, and consequences.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- Action or situation A has a particular degree of severity or consequence.
- Action or situation B differs greatly in severity or consequence.
- The speaker, ignoring these differences, presents A and B as morally equivalent.
Examples from real life:
1. In politics:
a) “Yes, that government bombed civilians, but your country has also made mistakes in the past!”
Here, it should be noted that taking responsibility for a specific crime cannot be nullified by pointing to others’ historical wrongdoings.
b) “That politician lied, but all politicians lie!”
Here, it should be noted that the existence of wrongdoing elsewhere does not reduce the personal responsibility of the liar.
c) “Yes, this party manipulated the election, but the rival party committed offences years ago!”
Here, it should be noted that past misconduct by others does not erase today’s crime and responsibility.
2. In social life:
“Giving a bribe is just like giving a gift to a friend.”
Here, it should be noted that bribery is an illegal and immoral act used to promote systemic corruption, whereas gift-giving under normal circumstances has no such consequence.
3. In family conversations:
“Telling a lie to surprise someone with a birthday party and telling a lie to hide damage to household property are both just lies.”
Here, it should be noted that the intention and outcome of these two lies are entirely different, and they cannot be considered morally equivalent.
4. In the media:
“Environmental activists who blocked a road are just like those who block the way for personal gain.”
Here, it should be noted that the motives and consequences of these two actions differ fundamentally.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- It weakens moral judgement: By presenting unlike things as equivalent, it blurs the line between right and wrong.
- It justifies wrongdoing: By saying “others have done it too”, it weakens personal and collective responsibility.
- It creates confusion in public opinion: Audiences may conclude that “everyone is the same”, and therefore no change is possible or necessary.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
If you hear two phenomena with clear differences in severity, intention, or consequences being presented as morally equivalent, ask:
– Are these two really on the same moral level?
– What are the objective differences in context, motive, or outcome?
– Is this comparison for better understanding, or to justify an obvious wrong?
A suitable response might be: “These two behaviours differ significantly in their consequences and intentions. Moral equivalence between them is not a correct conclusion. Let’s examine each in its actual context.”
Conclusion:
The fallacy of false moral equivalence blurs the boundary between right and wrong and hinders accountability. Recognising and avoiding it helps us make more accurate moral judgements and makes the improvement of conditions possible.