Moral equivalence facts for kids

Moral equivalence is a phrase used in political discussions and arguments. It describes a type of informal fallacy, which is a mistake in reasoning or a trick used in an argument. When someone uses moral equivalence, they compare two different things or actions and try to say they are equally good or bad, even if they are not.

This idea often makes it seem like the person using the term is fair and unbiased. They act as if they are looking at both sides from a neutral position. However, the reasoning is usually flawed because it doesn't consider the real differences between the things being compared. It can make issues seem simpler than they are.

For example, someone might say:

• The actions of one group are just as bad as the actions of another group. This means both groups are equally good or bad, no matter what they actually did.
• Doing one thing is just as good or bad as doing another. This suggests the people doing these things are equally good or bad, even if their actions are very different.

Moral equivalence is not a deep idea from philosophy. Instead, it is mostly seen as a logical mistake used to win an argument.

Understanding Moral Equivalence

When people talk about moral equivalence, they are often trying to create a hierarchy of good and bad. They want to show that one side in a conflict is better or worse than the other. This way of thinking tries to put different actions or groups on the same moral level, even if their situations or reasons are very different. It's like comparing Apples and oranges and saying they are the same because they are both fruit.

Origins of the Term

The idea of moral equivalence first appeared in a speech by William James in 1906. His speech was titled The Moral Equivalent of War. In his speech, James explored ways society could find the positive qualities of war, like courage and unity, without actually having to fight.

Popular Use in Politics

The term became more widely known thanks to Jeane Kirkpatrick. She was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. In 1966, Kirkpatrick wrote an essay called "The Myth of Moral Equivalence." In this essay, she argued against the idea that there was "no moral difference" between the Soviet Union and democratic countries. She believed it was wrong to say that both systems were equally good or bad.

Related Ideas

• False analogy: This is a type of argument where two things are compared that are not really alike.
• Morality: This refers to principles about what is right and wrong.
• Ethics: This is the study of moral principles and how people should act.