Can you outsmart the fallacy that divided a nation? - Elizabeth Cox
What, you want my milkshake? Here.
“It’s 1819. As the United States Congress prepares to make Missouri the 24th state in the Union, Representative James Tallmage Jr. delivers a speech. He says slavery is morally wrong, calling it an ‘abomination’ and a ‘monstrous scourge.’ He insists that ‘the extension of the evil must now be prevented,’ and that slavery shouldn’t be allowed in Missouri, or any new state.” Obviously. “Representative Tyler disagrees. He believes it is a state’s right to choose whether or not to allow slavery. He doesn’t think the federal government can prohibit slavery in any newly added states.” Whaaaaat? “Senator Thomas proposes what he sees as a compromise: Missouri will join the union along with another state, Maine. Slavery will be allowed in Missouri and prohibited in Maine. He also suggests drawing a line through territories yet to become states: slavery will be prohibited north of the line, and allowed south of it.” And this is where I have to draw the line.
That’s better. Now, senators, congressmen, this Missouri compromise you are proposing is fundamentally flawed— flawed is putting it mildly. The compromise is based on the middle ground fallacy. By saying that half of the new territories should allow slavery while half prohibit it, you position the two viewpoints, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, as equally valid. But if one view is wrong, while the other is right, a compromise between them is still wrong. And one side is definitely wrong here: the pro-slavery side. The whole reason this government exists, the whole reason states exist at all, is to serve the people. That should include all people. Now, I know there are those among you who would argue otherwise, even among those in favor of ending slavery. In response to your many contorted arguments, all of them wrong, I offer this reminder: the idea that slavery is morally indefensible is not new to you. The founders of your country knew it and many even acknowledged it publicly, even those of them who enslaved other people themselves. It’s clear that the errors and delusions on this subject go far beyond the middle ground fallacy, but I call your attention to this particular fallacy because it can have dire consequences in many situations. Failure to recognize the fact that a compromise between two positions, one of which is morally indefensible, is also morally indefensible, has helped to perpetuate countless injustices large and small. Even well-intentioned people— which rest assured, I don’t mistake you for— fall prey to this fallacy, because you humans tend to view compromise as a virtue unto itself.
“It’s March 1861. Seven states have seceded from the Union since Abraham Lincoln was elected president. As Lincoln takes office with four more states threatening to leave, he promises not to interfere with slavery in states where it exists, but to prohibit its expansion into new territories and states.” “It’s April 1861, and a Civil War has broken out over slavery.” Some things can't be resolved with a compromise.
“It’s 1819. As the United States Congress prepares to make Missouri the 24th state in the Union, Representative James Tallmage Jr. delivers a speech. He says slavery is morally wrong, calling it an ‘abomination’ and a ‘monstrous scourge.’ He insists that ‘the extension of the evil must now be prevented,’ and that slavery shouldn’t be allowed in Missouri, or any new state.” Obviously. “Representative Tyler disagrees. He believes it is a state’s right to choose whether or not to allow slavery. He doesn’t think the federal government can prohibit slavery in any newly added states.” Whaaaaat? “Senator Thomas proposes what he sees as a compromise: Missouri will join the union along with another state, Maine. Slavery will be allowed in Missouri and prohibited in Maine. He also suggests drawing a line through territories yet to become states: slavery will be prohibited north of the line, and allowed south of it.” And this is where I have to draw the line.
That’s better. Now, senators, congressmen, this Missouri compromise you are proposing is fundamentally flawed— flawed is putting it mildly. The compromise is based on the middle ground fallacy. By saying that half of the new territories should allow slavery while half prohibit it, you position the two viewpoints, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, as equally valid. But if one view is wrong, while the other is right, a compromise between them is still wrong. And one side is definitely wrong here: the pro-slavery side. The whole reason this government exists, the whole reason states exist at all, is to serve the people. That should include all people. Now, I know there are those among you who would argue otherwise, even among those in favor of ending slavery. In response to your many contorted arguments, all of them wrong, I offer this reminder: the idea that slavery is morally indefensible is not new to you. The founders of your country knew it and many even acknowledged it publicly, even those of them who enslaved other people themselves. It’s clear that the errors and delusions on this subject go far beyond the middle ground fallacy, but I call your attention to this particular fallacy because it can have dire consequences in many situations. Failure to recognize the fact that a compromise between two positions, one of which is morally indefensible, is also morally indefensible, has helped to perpetuate countless injustices large and small. Even well-intentioned people— which rest assured, I don’t mistake you for— fall prey to this fallacy, because you humans tend to view compromise as a virtue unto itself.
“It’s March 1861. Seven states have seceded from the Union since Abraham Lincoln was elected president. As Lincoln takes office with four more states threatening to leave, he promises not to interfere with slavery in states where it exists, but to prohibit its expansion into new territories and states.” “It’s April 1861, and a Civil War has broken out over slavery.” Some things can't be resolved with a compromise.
