Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Moral equivalence

Moral equivalence denotes a form of comparative ethical judgment that treats actions, positions, or entities as morally interchangeable despite substantial disparities in their intent, scale, causality, and consequences, frequently manifesting as a logical fallacy in reasoning.^[1]^[2] This approach often equates minor infractions with grave atrocities or aggressors with responders, thereby eroding distinctions rooted in empirical differences such as deliberate harm versus defensive necessity.^[3]^[4] In political discourse, accusations of moral equivalence typically target arguments that relativize moral hierarchies, such as portraying democratic self-defense as akin to totalitarian aggression, which critics argue obscures accountability and causal responsibility.^[5]^[6] The concept gained prominence during Cold War debates over equating Western liberal orders with Soviet imperialism, where such equivalences were seen as undermining clear ethical evaluations based on verifiable records of freedom, violence, and governance outcomes.^[6] Proponents of strict moral differentiation contend that this fallacy prioritizes superficial symmetry over data-driven assessments of harm—e.g., state-sponsored mass killings versus isolated retaliatory acts—potentially paralyzing responses to existential threats.^[1]^[5] Notable controversies arise when moral equivalence is invoked to critique perceived biases in institutional analyses, such as academic or media tendencies to balance narratives between perpetrators and victims without proportional weighting of evidence, thereby diluting judgments of culpability.^[6] This has persisted into contemporary conflicts, where equating targeted counterterrorism with indiscriminate attacks ignores disparities in adherence to principles like proportionality and civilian safeguards, as substantiated by conflict data and legal standards.^[7]^[8] Truth-seeking evaluations thus emphasize disaggregating moral claims through causal analysis rather than blanket parity, fostering clearer delineations of ethical reality over ideological symmetry.^[1]

Definition and Philosophical Foundations

Core Definition and Distinctions

Moral equivalence denotes the argumentative practice of asserting that two or more actions, parties, or situations in a conflict possess identical moral culpability or justification, irrespective of disparities in intent, scale, or ethical context. This concept typically arises in political or ethical debates where one side's deliberate aggression or atrocity is portrayed as comparable to the other's defensive or proportionate response, thereby eroding distinctions in moral responsibility. For instance, equating the intentional targeting of civilians by non-state actors with unintended collateral damage in state military operations exemplifies this approach, often serving to neutralize condemnation of the former.^[5]^[2] In ethical analysis, moral equivalence functions as an informal fallacy by conflating acts of differing gravity, such as minor procedural lapses with systematic violations of human rights, implying equivalent immorality and thus excusing the graver offense through comparative deflection. Philosophers critique it for obscuring objective moral asymmetries, where factors like aggression versus self-defense or proportionality in harm determine ethical variance; this obfuscation can justify moral paralysis or neutrality in the face of clear wrongdoing. The term gained traction in critiques of Cold War-era apologetics, where Soviet totalitarianism was leveled against democratic flaws to deny the former's unique ethical defects.^[5]^[2]^[6] Moral equivalence differs from false equivalence, a broader logical error that draws parallels based on superficial traits without regard to substantive differences; the former specifically targets moral judgments, often ignoring causal intent or outcome severity in ethical evaluations. It contrasts with moral relativism, which posits that ethical standards are culturally or subjectively variable without universal anchors, whereas moral equivalence presupposes objective morals but misapplies them through undue parity. Unlike tu quoque arguments, which highlight hypocrisy to undermine credibility without claiming parity, moral equivalence seeks to equalize blame across unequal acts, distinct from legitimate just war assessments that weigh proportionality without erasing aggressor-victim distinctions.^[9]^[10]

Links to Ethical Theories

Moral equivalence is frequently critiqued as a consequence of ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism, theories that deny objective moral standards and thereby imply that opposing moral viewpoints—such as those endorsing genocide versus those condemning it—are equally plausible.^[11] In subjectivism, individual attitudes determine moral truth, leading to the doctrine's core implication: moral equivalence, where no one's fundamental moral outlook holds inherent superiority over another's, regardless of content.^[11] This alignment renders relativist frameworks vulnerable to charges of permitting indefensible equivalences, as all biases and bigotries become morally validated on par with egalitarian principles.^[11] In opposition, moral absolutism and objectivist theories reject equivalence by positing universal moral truths that permit hierarchical judgments between actions or parties, such as deeming unprovoked aggression categorically wrong irrespective of cultural context. Deontological ethics, emphasizing duties and rules over consequences, further undermines moral equivalence when one side adheres to imperatives (e.g., non-aggression) while the other violates them, creating objective asymmetries. Just war theory exemplifies this, distinguishing jus ad bellum (right to war) from jus in bello (conduct in war) to deny full equivalence between defenders and aggressors, even if combatants share in bello responsibilities.^[12] Analytically, moral equivalence judgments operate independently of singular right/wrong verdicts or foundational principles in both consequentialist and deontological systems, serving as a distinct resource for ethical theorizing. These judgments group actions into equivalence classes based on shared non-moral properties determining their moral status, facilitating reflective equilibrium in dilemmas like trolley problems, where equivalences (e.g., diverting a trolley versus pushing a person) expose tensions without presupposing utilitarianism or duty-based resolutions.^[13] Thus, equivalence claims supplement rather than derive from dominant theories, highlighting normative structures across monistic and pluralistic ethics.^[13]

Historical Evolution

Early Philosophical Roots

The earliest philosophical precursors to moral equivalence appear in ancient Greek explorations of moral relativism during the 5th century BCE, where thinkers emphasized the variability of ethical norms across individuals and societies, challenging the possibility of objective moral hierarchies. Herodotus, in his Histories (c. 440 BCE), documented diverse cultural practices, such as contrasting burial customs among the Greeks, Callatians, and Indians, and recounted Darius I's experiment forcing groups to adopt foreign rites, which they rejected upon return, concluding that "custom is king of all" (3.38). This observation implied that moral evaluations are inescapably tied to cultural conventions, rendering cross-cultural judgments of superiority arbitrary and suggesting an underlying equivalence in the validity of differing moral systems.^[14]^[15] Building on such ethnographic insights, the Sophists, itinerant educators active around 450–400 BCE, advanced subjective and cultural relativism as a systematic challenge to absolute ethics. Protagoras (c. 490–420 BCE), a prominent Sophist, articulated the doctrine that "man is the measure of all things—of those being, that they are, and of those not being, that they are not" (as reported in Plato's Theaetetus 152a), extending this to morality by positing that what appears just or pious to a given society or individual constitutes its truth in that context (Plato's Theaetetus 167c–168b). This framework equated moral validity across perspectives, undermining claims of universal standards and enabling arguments for equivalence between conflicting ethical practices, such as societal acceptance of infanticide or slavery.^[16]^[14] Gorgias (c. 485–380 BCE), another key Sophist, reinforced these ideas through rhetorical skepticism, arguing in On Non-Being that nothing exists absolutely or can be communicated reliably, which implicitly treated moral claims as persuasive constructs rather than objective truths, further eroding distinctions between morally divergent actions. While these views promoted adaptability in ethics, they drew sharp Platonic critique for fostering ethical incoherence, as seen in dialogues like Theaetetus and Gorgias, where Socrates exposes relativism's inability to resolve disputes over right and wrong. Nonetheless, Sophistic relativism established a foundational skepticism toward moral absolutes, influencing later debates on equivalence by prioritizing perceptual or conventional variance over invariant principles.^[16]^[17]

20th-Century Political Emergence

The political invocation of moral equivalence gained prominence in the latter half of the 20th century, amid Cold War tensions, as Soviet propaganda and sympathetic Western intellectuals promoted the notion that the United States and the USSR held comparable moral failings, thereby blurring distinctions between democratic systems and totalitarian ones. This framing emerged as a response to U.S. policies emphasizing human rights and détente, where critics argued that equating American interventions with Soviet aggressions ignored systemic differences: democracies tolerated internal dissent and pursued limited foreign aims, while communist regimes enforced ideological conformity through mass repression and expansionist conquest. By the 1970s, such arguments surfaced in debates over U.S. support for anti-communist allies, with accusations that overly idealistic standards fostered a false symmetry that weakened resolve against Moscow's imperial ambitions.^[6] Jeane Kirkpatrick's 1979 essay "Dictatorships and Double Standards," published in Commentary, critiqued the Carter administration's foreign policy for applying uniform moral judgments to disparate regimes, failing to differentiate "traditional authoritarian" governments—often right-leaning, pragmatic, and capable of transition to democracy—from "totalitarian" communist states that systematically eradicated civil society, private property, and political pluralism. Kirkpatrick documented how this approach, rooted in abstract rationalism, led to the destabilization of allies like the Shah of Iran (overthrown in 1979) while tolerating Soviet-backed revolutions in places like Nicaragua and Ethiopia, effectively imposing double standards that disadvantaged anti-totalitarian forces. Her analysis highlighted empirical disparities in regime behaviors: authoritarian rulers preserved some institutional pluralism and market elements, whereas totalitarian ones, exemplified by the USSR's Gulag system and purges under Stalin (responsible for an estimated 20 million deaths from 1929 to 1953), pursued total societal control.^[18] The term "moral equivalence" crystallized as a pejorative in the 1980s, particularly following Kirkpatrick's 1986 essay and speech "The Myth of Moral Equivalence," which rebutted claims—echoed in forums like the 1984 Chatham House debate—that superpowers operated under symmetric moral constraints. She contrasted the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983, which restored electoral processes and ousted a Marxist junta after its leaders executed 70 opponents, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which installed a puppet regime and resulted in over 1 million Afghan civilian deaths through indiscriminate warfare and scorched-earth tactics. Kirkpatrick argued that Soviet efforts to redefine terms like "human rights" (shifting focus from political freedoms to economic claims) and impose utopian benchmarks on democracies masked totalitarianism's rejection of consent-based governance, a distinction empirically evident in the USSR's suppression of 1980s dissidents versus U.S. protections under the First Amendment. These exchanges reflected broader political battles, where equivalence narratives, often amplified by media and academic sources prone to relativist interpretations, served to constrain Western anti-communist actions until the Soviet collapse in 1991.^[6]

Major Historical Examples

World War II Comparisons

In discussions of World War II, moral equivalence has frequently been applied to equate the civilian casualties from Allied strategic bombing campaigns with the Axis powers' deliberate genocidal policies and war crimes. For instance, comparisons have been made between the firebombing of Dresden from February 13 to 15, 1945, which killed an estimated 22,700 to 25,000 civilians, and the Nazi Holocaust, a systematic extermination program that murdered approximately six million Jews between 1941 and 1945 through mass shootings, ghettos, forced labor, and gas chambers in death camps like Auschwitz.^[19]^[20] Similarly, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (approximately 66,000 immediate deaths) and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 (approximately 39,000 immediate deaths), with total fatalities reaching 140,000 and 74,000 respectively by the end of 1945, have been paralleled with Nazi or Japanese atrocities to argue that no side held moral superiority.^[21]^[22] These equivalences are critiqued as a fallacy because they conflate acts differing fundamentally in intent, proportionality, and causal origins. Nazi Germany and its Axis partners initiated an unprovoked war of aggression starting September 1, 1939, with the invasion of Poland, which included the first large-scale bombing of civilian areas in Wieluń that day, killing hundreds; this set a precedent for unrestricted aerial attacks on non-combatants, as seen in the subsequent Blitz on British cities beginning September 7, 1940, which caused over 40,000 civilian deaths. In response, Allied bombings targeted industrial and military infrastructure to cripple the Axis war machine, accepting collateral damage in total war but not pursuing extermination as policy; the Holocaust, by contrast, aimed explicitly at racial annihilation independent of military necessity, with victims selected for death regardless of combatant status.^[23] The scale further underscores the disparity: Axis genocides and mass killings totaled 11 to 17 million non-combatants, dwarfing even the highest estimates of Allied bombing fatalities (around 600,000 German civilians).^[20] Historians such as Michael Burleigh have condemned such parallels as historically and ethically flawed, arguing they obscure the Allies' defensive posture against totalitarian regimes intent on conquest and erasure of peoples, while relativizing Nazi crimes that lacked any reciprocal military justification.^[24] This form of equivalence often emerges in revisionist narratives or pacifist critiques that prioritize aggregate suffering over causal responsibility, yet it fails to account for the Allies' ultimate role in liberating Europe from Axis domination, preventing further genocidal escalation. Empirical analyses of wartime decisions, including declassified Allied records, affirm that bombing strategies evolved from Axis precedents and were constrained by evolving international norms, unlike the ideological drive of Nazi extermination.^[25]

Cold War Applications

Moral equivalence during the Cold War manifested primarily as arguments equating the moral culpability of the democratic United States and its allies with that of the totalitarian Soviet Union, often framing both superpowers as symmetrically aggressive imperialists responsible for global tensions. This perspective gained traction among Western academics, media outlets, and policymakers during the détente era (roughly 1969–1979), where symmetric treatment in arms control negotiations implied parity despite the Soviet regime's systematic denial of basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, and movement. For instance, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) agreement signed on May 26, 1972, between the U.S. and USSR limited strategic nuclear delivery vehicles without addressing the ideological asymmetry, allowing Soviet expansionism in places like Angola (1975) to proceed unchecked while critics decried U.S. interventions as equivalently imperialistic.^[26] A key application appeared in debates over proxy conflicts, where actions like the U.S. support for anti-communist forces in Vietnam—resulting in an estimated 58,000 U.S. military deaths and up to 2 million Vietnamese civilian casualties from 1965–1973—were portrayed as morally indistinguishable from Soviet invasions, such as the 1956 suppression of the Hungarian uprising (killing approximately 2,500 Hungarians and prompting 200,000 refugees) or the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan (leading to over 1 million Afghan deaths and 5 million refugees by 1989). Proponents of equivalence, including some U.S. senators like William Fulbright, argued that both sides fueled endless cycles of violence through ideological proxy wars, ignoring the Soviet Union's Marxist-Leninist doctrine of forcible class struggle and world revolution, which contrasted with U.S. defensive containment policies rooted in democratic self-determination. This view often overlooked empirical disparities, such as the USSR's Gulag labor camp system, which imprisoned up to 2.5 million people at its peak in the 1950s with death tolls exceeding 1.6 million from 1929–1953, versus isolated U.S. atrocities like the My Lai massacre (504 civilians killed in 1968), which were publicly investigated and prosecuted.^[27] The notion permeated nuclear arms race discourse, with equivalence advocates claiming mutual assured destruction (MAD) rendered both arsenals—peaking at U.S. ~23,000 warheads and Soviet ~40,000 by the 1980s—equally immoral threats to humanity, downplaying Soviet first-strike doctrines and violations of treaties like the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the UN from 1981–1985, critiqued this as a fallacy in her 1986 lecture "The Myth of Moral Equivalence," arguing it conflates flaws in liberal democracies with the inherent coerciveness of Marxist regimes that reject individual rights as bourgeois illusions.^[28] Rejection of moral equivalence intensified under President Ronald Reagan, who in his March 8, 1983, "Evil Empire" speech to the National Association of Evangelicals denounced the USSR as "the focus of evil in the modern world" and lambasted equivalence as historical denialism that ignores Soviet aggression, such as the 1979–1989 Afghan occupation involving chemical weapons and mass executions. Reagan's stance, echoed by Margaret Thatcher, emphasized causal realism: Soviet totalitarianism caused far greater human suffering through state terror—evidenced by post-1945 deportations of over 3 million people from Eastern Europe—compared to Western errors correctable via electoral accountability. This critique contributed to policy shifts, including increased defense spending (rising from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion by 1985) and support for dissidents, undermining equivalence narratives and accelerating the USSR's 1991 collapse.^[29]^[30]

Contemporary Political Uses

Israel-Hamas Conflict

In the Israel-Hamas conflict, moral equivalence is frequently invoked by critics to equate Hamas's deliberate terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians with Israel's military operations against Hamas militants, despite fundamental asymmetries in intent, methods, and adherence to international norms of warfare.^[31]^[32] On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a coordinated assault from Gaza into southern Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people—predominantly civilians, including at a music festival and in border communities—and taking over 250 hostages, many of whom remain in captivity or were killed.^[33]^[34] This attack, the deadliest against Jews since the Holocaust, was justified by Hamas under its foundational ideology, as articulated in its 1988 charter, which explicitly calls for the obliteration of Israel and frames the conflict in religious terms of jihad against Jews.^[35]^[36] Hamas's strategy systematically embeds military assets within densely populated civilian areas in Gaza, including rocket launch sites near schools and hospitals, and has been documented to use civilians as shields to deter Israeli strikes or exploit resulting casualties for propaganda.^[37]^[38]^[39] Israel's response, Operation Swords of Iron, targets Hamas command structures, tunnels, and weapon stores, with protocols requiring assessments of civilian risk, including roof-knock warnings and evacuation directives prior to strikes, though post-October 7 rules were temporarily adjusted to prioritize neutralizing immediate threats amid an existential peril.^[40]^[41] By mid-2024, Gaza health authorities reported over 30,000 Palestinian deaths, with Israel estimating around 13,000-14,000 were Hamas combatants, yielding a combatant-to-civilian ratio lower than urban warfare averages (e.g., 1:1 to 1:2 versus global norms of 1:3 or higher), attributable in part to Hamas's tactics and governance failures like blocking aid routes.^[42]^[43] Equating these sides overlooks Hamas's rejection of Israel's existence—evident in its charter's antisemitic tropes and repeated rocket barrages (over 12,000 since 2005)—versus Israel's conditional recognition of Palestinian statehood in past offers, such as Camp David 2000 and Annapolis 2008, which Hamas opposed.^[44]^[45] Critics argue this false equivalence, often amplified in biased media narratives prioritizing raw casualty disparities over context, delegitimizes Israel's jus ad bellum right to self-defense against an aggressor sworn to its annihilation, while excusing Hamas's jus in bello violations like targeting non-combatants.^[31]^[43] Such framing, per analysts, prolongs the conflict by pressuring Israel to restrain operations prematurely, allowing Hamas to regroup, as seen in prior Gaza wars where ceasefires preserved its capabilities.^[32] Empirical disparities in governance—Israel's democratic accountability and aid provision to Gaza pre-war versus Hamas's diversion of resources to military ends—further undermine equivalence claims, rooted more in relativism than causal analysis of aggression.^[46]^[47]

Russia-Ukraine Invasion

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has prompted debates over moral equivalence, particularly in claims that equate the aggressor's actions with the defender's response or attribute shared culpability to both sides. Proponents of equivalence often argue that NATO's eastward expansion provoked Moscow, implying mutual responsibility for the conflict, or that Ukrainian military operations in civilian areas mirror Russian tactics, thus relativizing blame.^[48] ^[49] However, such views overlook the causal asymmetry: Russia's unprovoked violation of Ukraine's sovereignty under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, where Moscow pledged to respect borders in exchange for denuclearization, initiated the aggression, rendering equivalence a distortion of responsibility.^[50] Atrocities further highlight the disparity. Russian forces have systematically targeted civilians, with documented war crimes including the Bucha massacre (over 400 bodies found in April 2022), forced deportation of at least 19,000 Ukrainian children, and strikes on infrastructure causing over 12,300 civilian deaths by January 2025.^[51] ^[52] Ukrainian actions, such as basing military assets near populated areas, have drawn criticism from Amnesty International for endangering civilians, but these occur in a defensive context against an existential threat and lack the intent or scale of Russia's deliberate campaigns, like the use of cluster munitions with high dud rates as policy.^[53] ^[54] Equating these ignores the aggressor's primary role in escalating violence, with Russian military casualties exceeding 250,000 deaths compared to Ukraine's defensive posture.^[55] Politically, moral equivalence manifests in calls for negotiations that treat Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy as symmetric parties, as seen in some U.S. discourse suggesting parity between the leaders.^[56] Critics, including bipartisan U.S. resolutions, reject this by affirming no equivalence between the invader—responsible for initiating and sustaining the war—and the sovereign state exercising self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.^[57] In global south perspectives, equivalence arises from analogies to Western interventions, yet this conflates historical grievances with the immediate causality of Russia's territorial ambitions, which deny Ukraine's right to self-determination.^[58] Such framing, while politically expedient for neutral stances, empirically fails to account for the invasion's unilateral origins and disproportionate human cost borne by Ukraine.^[50]

Criticisms and Analytical Frameworks

Arguments Identifying It as a Fallacy

Moral equivalence is identified as a fallacy because it employs false equivalence by asserting moral parity between actions or entities that differ significantly in intent, scale, consequences, and context, thereby distorting ethical evaluation.^[2]^[59] This form of equivocation overlooks qualitative distinctions, such as comparing isolated defensive measures to systematic aggression, which invalidates the analogy under principles of proportional reasoning in ethics.^[4] Critics argue that moral equivalence erodes objective moral assessment by implying relativism, where all flaws are weighted equally regardless of their causal impact on human rights or flourishing, as seen in equating democratic imperfections with totalitarian repression.^[6] For instance, Jeane Kirkpatrick contended that portraying Western societies as morally identical to Soviet regimes ignores the former's commitment to universal values versus the latter's institutionalized denial of freedoms, a comparison that fails causal realism by conflating aspirational lapses with deliberate systemic violence.^[6] Philosophically, this fallacy contravenes frameworks distinguishing moral agency, such as consequentialist evaluations where outcomes like civilian targeting in unprovoked attacks outweigh incidental harms in self-defense, as articulated by thinkers emphasizing measurable differences in ethical culpability.^[32] Sam Harris has critiqued it as a "sin" that hinders recognition of moral progress, exemplified by rejecting equivalence between modern liberal societies and historical slaveholders or genocidal regimes, since contemporary actors demonstrably reduce harms through institutional reforms.^[32] By fostering "whataboutism," moral equivalence paralyzes decisive judgment against greater wrongs, as it falsely balances scales to obscure aggressors' primary responsibility, thereby complicating identification of ethical hierarchies in conflicts.^[5] This rhetorical device, often deployed to evade accountability, undermines causal accountability by diffusing blame across unequivalent parties, as evidenced in analyses of political discourse where it equates initiators of violence with responders.^[5]^[32]

Relativist Justifications and Rebuttals

Moral relativism provides a foundational justification for moral equivalence by asserting that ethical evaluations lack objective grounding and are instead contingent upon cultural, societal, or individual frameworks, rendering cross-context judgments inherently invalid. Under this view, actions in a conflict—such as aggression versus self-defense—cannot be deemed morally superior or inferior in absolute terms, as each party's conduct aligns with its own normative standards, fostering an equivalence that discourages hierarchical moral assessments.^[14]^[15] Proponents argue this approach promotes tolerance and avoids ethnocentrism, positing that diverse moral codes are equally legitimate, which in political disputes equates, for instance, state-sponsored terrorism with defensive military responses by viewing both as expressions of culturally embedded values.^[60] This relativist stance extends to meta-ethical claims where conflicting moral judgments from opposing sides can both hold truth relative to their origins, thereby nullifying claims of moral asymmetry in conflicts like ideological wars or territorial disputes.^[61] Advocates, drawing from anthropological observations of moral diversity, contend that imposing universal standards equates to cultural imperialism, justifying equivalence as a neutral posture that respects pluralism without privileging one worldview.^[62] Rebuttals to these justifications emphasize the internal incoherence of relativism, as its denial of absolute truths undermines its own prescriptive tolerance, which relativists often advance as universally binding, creating a self-refuting paradox.^[63] Critics further argue that relativism's equivalence erodes the capacity to condemn egregious acts, such as systematic genocide, by equating them to benign practices, which common intuition rejects as absurd—evident in the intuitive disparity between atrocities like those under totalitarian regimes and humanitarian efforts.^[64] Empirically, cross-cultural studies reveal substantial agreement on core prohibitions against unprovoked violence, deceit, and harm to innocents, undermining the relativist premise of radical incommensurability and supporting objective moral baselines that distinguish aggressors from victims in conflicts.^[65]^[15] In political applications, this framework's rejection enables causal analysis: aggressors initiating force violate universal principles of reciprocity and non-harm, irrespective of cultural rationales, as evidenced by international legal norms like the UN Charter's prohibition on aggression, which presuppose non-relative wrongs.^[66] Philosophers advocating moral realism counter that objective goods, such as human flourishing and justice, permit unequivocal differentiation, rendering equivalence not only logically flawed but practically dangerous, as it paralyzes responses to existential threats.^[60]^[67]

Broader Implications

Influence on Policy Decisions

Moral equivalence has historically shaped foreign policy by promoting symmetric responses to asymmetric threats, often diluting support for democratic states defending against authoritarian aggression. During the Cold War, the doctrine underpinned U.S. détente policies in the 1970s, such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I in 1972), which treated Soviet and American military postures as interchangeable despite the USSR's sponsorship of proxy wars and human rights abuses in Eastern Europe and beyond.^[30] Critics, including President Ronald Reagan, argued that this equivalence ignored the ideological chasm between liberal democracies and totalitarian regimes, leading to arms control agreements that failed to curb Soviet adventurism until Reagan's explicit rejection of equivalence in his 1983 "Evil Empire" speech, which preceded increased defense spending and contributed to the USSR's 1991 collapse.^[30] In the Russia-Ukraine war, moral equivalence has manifested in policy debates over military aid, with some Western leaders and commentators equating Russian territorial claims to Ukrainian self-defense, thereby advocating for negotiated settlements that implicitly validate the 2022 invasion. This perspective influenced European hesitancy on energy sanctions and U.S. restrictions on Ukraine's use of donated weapons for strikes inside Russia, as seen in the Biden administration's June 2024 policy reversal allowing limited cross-border operations only after prolonged allied pressure.^[54] Such equivalence, per analysts at the American Enterprise Institute, undermines deterrence by signaling to aggressors like Vladimir Putin that violations of sovereignty incur no decisive repercussions, potentially prolonging conflicts and encouraging further incursions, as evidenced by Russia's continued mobilization of over 500,000 troops by mid-2024.^[68] ^[69] Regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict post-October 7, 2023, moral equivalence has affected U.S. policy by framing Israeli counteroffensives against Hamas—responsible for the deliberate killing of 1,200 civilians and abduction of 251 hostages—as comparable to Hamas's intentional use of human shields and rocket attacks from civilian areas. This led to the Biden administration's repeated calls for "restraint" and humanitarian pauses in Gaza operations, including a November 2023 temporary ceasefire that facilitated limited hostage releases but allowed Hamas to regroup, as noted in congressional reports.^[43] ^[70] Analysts contend this approach erodes Israel's operational freedom, emboldens terrorist groups by prioritizing equivalence over dismantling command structures, and correlates with stalled progress in eliminating Hamas leadership, with key figures like Yahya Sinwar remaining active into 2024.^[43]

Effects on Public Discourse and Media

Moral equivalence in media coverage frequently manifests as false balance, where journalists accord equal validity to morally disparate positions, such as equating deliberate aggression with defensive responses in conflicts.^[71] This approach, criticized as "bothsidesism," distorts public perception by implying parity between actions of varying ethical gravity, thereby obscuring causal asymmetries like initiator versus reactor.^[72] Empirical analyses of journalistic practices reveal that such framing arises from an overzealous pursuit of neutrality, often prioritizing procedural fairness over substantive moral evaluation, which in turn amplifies fringe or unsubstantiated narratives.^[73] In public discourse, moral equivalence erodes argumentative clarity by promoting "whataboutism," a rhetorical deflection that pairs unrelated historical or contextual grievances to neutralize criticism of present wrongs.^[5] This tactic, observed in debates over international interventions, fosters cynicism among audiences, as repeated equivocations diminish the salience of ethical hierarchies essential for mobilizing consensus against verifiable injustices.^[6] Studies of discourse patterns indicate that such relativism intensifies identity-based polarization, substituting principled adjudication for tribal score-settling and hindering causal accountability for events like unprovoked invasions or targeted atrocities.^[74] Media's institutional embrace of moral equivalence, particularly in Western outlets covering asymmetric disputes, correlates with audience confusion and eroded credibility, as polls post-major conflicts show heightened skepticism toward reports perceived as artificially symmetrizing victim and perpetrator roles.^[75] This dynamic impedes robust debate by conflating empirical disparities—such as intent, proportionality, and adherence to international norms—with subjective interpretations, ultimately stalling public support for proportionate countermeasures.^[76] Over time, it cultivates a discourse environment where moral realism yields to indeterminate pluralism, prolonging equivocal narratives that benefit actors evading scrutiny.^[1]

References

[1]
(PDF) On moral equivalence - ResearchGate
This paper studies the concept of moral equivalence as a form of comparative evaluation that involves two distinct types of argument that depend upon a specific ...
[2]
Logical Fallacies - Purdue OWL
Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral. That parking attendant who gave me ...
[3]
False Equivalence Fallacy | Definition & Examples - QuillBot
Jun 24, 2024 · The moral equivalence fallacy is a type of false equivalence in which different actions or situations are falsely treated as having the same ...
[4]
False moral equivalence - The Logical Place
Aug 13, 2015 · Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, even unrelated things.
[5]
Why is 'moral equivalence' such a bad thing? A political philosopher ...
May 31, 2024 · Moral equivalence is, then, a useful phrase with which to criticize those who want to make it more difficult to identify and acknowledge moral wrongdoing.
[6]
The Myth of Moral Equivalence - Imprimis - Hillsdale College
If we pretend to hallow values which our practices do not perfectly achieve, then we are guilty of falsification. So we are both a failure and a fraud.Missing: philosophy | Show results with:philosophy<|separator|>
[7]
Moral equivalency as a political tool in the 2024 election - The Fulcrum
Nov 4, 2024 · Moral equivalence is a fallacy commonly used in politics. It occurs when two different or unrelated issues or positions are falsely said to carry the same ...
[8]
Towards a political rhetoric of wrongdoing: the case of moral ...
Moral equivalence arguments play an important role in disputes about wrongdoing. In common with 'lesser evil' arguments and arguments about moral 'double ...
[9]
False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons
False equivalence is a logical fallacy where someone incorrectly asserts that two (or more) things are equivalent simply because they share some characteristics ...What makes an equivalence... · How to respond to a false...
[10]
7.3 Logic – Communication in Practice
False Equivalence (also known as “Moral Equivalence”): if you can refer to two things by the same name, or put them both in the same category, then there is no ...
[11]
[PDF] Ethical Relativism - Whitman People
Moral Equivalence. Subjectivists grant that your moral values, which very likely oppose the ones just mentioned, are also correct. The biased and the bigoted ...
[12]
Moral Theory and the Idea of a Just War
It holds that there are right and wrong answers to the moral questions it poses and thus rejects the idea of moral relativism or 'equivalence' as far as its own ...
[13]
None
### Summary of Main Arguments Linking Moral Equivalences to Ethical Theories
[14]
Moral Relativism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 19, 2004 · In the classical Greek world, both the historian Herodotus and the sophist Protagoras appeared to endorse some form of relativism (the latter ...Historical Background · Descriptive Moral Relativism · Metaethical Moral Relativism
[15]
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The idea was that moral beliefs and practices are bound up with customs and conventions, and these vary greatly between societies. The historian Herodotus tells ...
[16]
Sophists, The - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 30, 2011 · While relativism, particularly in the area of morality, is popularly seen as characteristic of sophists generally (see Bett 1989), in fact ...Protagoras · Religion · Other sophists · Bibliography
[17]
Sophists | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sophists were itinerant teachers in 5th century BCE Greece, who taught aretē (virtue) for a fee, related to wisdom and wise.Introduction · The Sophists · Major Themes of Sophistic... · Relativism
[18]
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AEIReprint107.pdf
[19]
Report: Dresden bombing deaths overestimated - NBC News
Oct 1, 2008 · Report: Dresden bombing deaths overestimated. The Allied firebombing of the eastern German city of Dresden in 1945 killed no more than 25,000 ...
[20]
How Many People did the Nazis Murder? | Holocaust Encyclopedia
Sep 26, 2023 · Behind the number of victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution are people whose hopes and dreams were destroyed. Learn about the toll of ...
[21]
The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Avalon Project
Total casualties were estimated at 135,000 in Hiroshima and 64,000 in Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, 66,000 died and 69,000 were injured; in Nagasaki, 39,000 died and ...
[22]
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings - ICAN
By the end of 1945, the bombing had killed an estimated 140,000 people in Hiroshima, and a further 74,000 in Nagasaki. It is estimated that of those killed, ...
[23]
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/bombing/
[24]
Good and Evil in World War II | American Diplomacy Est 1996
May 1, 2011 · Burleigh is scathing in his comment that those historians who have endeavoured to equate the Allied aerial bombing with Nazi crimes against ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
[25]
[PDF] The Historiography of the Allied Bombing Campaign of Germany.
Historian Mary Nolan suggests that Germans, in private, have questioned the morality of Allied attacks and Nazi crimes for decades. 253. In the. West, the ...Missing: equating | Show results with:equating
[26]
U.S.-Soviet Relations in the Era of Détente, 1969-1976: Transcript
For example, the Soviets were always seeking to force us to withdraw our so-called forward-based forces, forward-deployed forwards, and pull them back to the ...
[27]
Trump's Moral Equivalence Game Is Right out of the Left's Playbook
Sep 9, 2016 · During the Cold War, this usually meant saying that we were no better than the Soviet Union. For example, Democratic Senator William J.
[28]
On “moral equivalence” . . . | The New Criterion
Entitled “American Freedom in a Global Age,” the essay argues that really, when you come right down to it, American freedom is tantamount to a lack of freedom.Missing: discourse | Show results with:discourse
[29]
Reagan, "Evil Empire," Speech Text - Voices of Democracy
declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply ...
[30]
Morality and Foreign Policy: Reagan and Thatcher - Imprimis
He rejected absolutely the idea of moral equivalence—the idea, prevalent at the time, and still prevalent today, that there is no moral difference between free ...
[31]
Israel & Hamas Are Not Morally Equivalent - Lincoln Institute
May 2, 2024 · There is no comparison between the IDF and Hamas from the standpoint of morality. The IDF never intentionally targets innocent civilians. Hamas does so every ...
[32]
The Sin of Moral Equivalence - Sam Harris
Oct 12, 2023 · ... moral equivalence between Israel and its enemies, or to justify the actions of Hamas as though they were a response to Israeli provocations ...
[33]
Hamas in Its Own Words | ADL
Jan 10, 2024 · Hamas has been promoting rhetoric and policies aimed at destroying the Jewish state of Israel and killing Jews and Israelis around the world.
[34]
Doctrine of Hamas | Wilson Center
Oct 20, 2023 · Hamas is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. It has called on members of the other two Abrahamic faiths—Judaism and ...
[35]
Hamas Covenant 1988 - The Avalon Project
The Covenant of the. Islamic Resistance Movement. 18 August 1988. In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah. "Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up ...
[36]
THE COVENANT OF THE HAMAS - MAIN POINTS
' (Article 6) On the Destruction of Israel ... call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being ...
[37]
[PDF] Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza
Hamas' most common uses of human shields include: ∎ Firing rockets, artillery, and mortars from or in proximity to heavily populated civilian areas, often from ...
[38]
[PDF] Hamas's Human Shield Strategy in Gaza | Henry Jackson Society
May 4, 2025 · it found no evidence that Hamas directed or forced residents to move to or to stay in locations used by militants. However, this is not the only ...
[39]
Hamas: Using Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields to Attack Israel
May 13, 2025 · Hamas deliberately puts Palestinian civilians in danger by firing rockets and storing weapons in civilian areas, including in and around homes, ...
[40]
How Does the IDF Minimize Harm to Palestinian Civilians?
“The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to-one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every ...
[41]
IDF loosened rules of engagement after Oct. 7, allowing more ...
Dec 26, 2024 · IDF loosened rules of engagement after Oct. 7, allowing more civilian deaths – NY Times. Officers could endanger up to 20 civilians to kill a ...
[42]
The genocide claim against Israel doesn't add up
Jun 2, 2024 · Now thirteen thousand militants out of 30,000 total dead spells a combatant-to-civilian ratio of 13:17. · 3/1000 deaths yearly in the Gaza Strip.
[43]
Beware False Moral Equivalence Between Israel and Hamas Militants
Sep 4, 2024 · Critics of Israel will no doubt immediately cite the (often inflated and unverified) numbers of civilians killed in Gaza as the result of ...
[44]
Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology - The Atlantic
Oct 10, 2023 · How many Israelis, or Jews, or anyone else for that matter, have read the 1988 Hamas Covenant or the revised charter that was issued in 2017?
[45]
No Moral Equivalence In Hamas Israel Attack
Oct 9, 2023 · Hamas has never recognized Israel's right to exist. In fact, keep in mind that, since 2005, Israel hasn't even occupied Gaza; it does, however, ...
[46]
https://www.theconversation.com/why-is-moral-equivalence-such-a-bad-thing-a-political-philosopher-explains-231143
[47]
https://humanistperspectives.org/229/moral-equivalence/
[48]
The Moral Bankruptcy of the Moral Equivalency Arguments about ...
Mar 19, 2022 · ... moral equivalence between the Western worldview and Russia's worldview today. ... Russia and the Ukraine. I think Putin may have had no other move ...
[49]
Russia is using the Soviet playbook in the Global South to challenge ...
May 16, 2024 · Many in the Global South draw a moral equivalence between Russia's actions in Ukraine and those of the US and its Western allies in other ...<|separator|>
[50]
Ukraine and Moral Equivalence - Santa Clara University
May 3, 2022 · Ukraine and Moral Equivalence. Home · Markkula Center ... Russia's invasion of Ukraine is antithetical to the principle of self-determination.
[51]
Over 12,300 civilians killed since start of Ukraine war, UN says
Jan 8, 2025 · Over 12,300 civilians killed since start of Ukraine war, UN says · Civilians deaths rose 30% in late 2024, UN data shows · UN documents dozens of ...
[52]
https://rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-war-crimes/33336084.html
[53]
Ukraine war raises ethical questions for newsrooms
Amnesty International, however, produced a controversial report accusing Ukraine of breaching human rights law by operating military assets in civilian areas.Missing: moral | Show results with:moral
[54]
Moral Equivalence vs. Moral Leadership - AEI
Jul 12, 2023 · This is where the false moral equivalence comes in. Russia, as a matter of policy, uses cluster bombs that have a dud rate of 30 to 40 percent.
[55]
https://www.statista.com/topics/13125/conflicts-worldwide-2025/
[56]
GOP hawks bristle at Trump's anti-Ukraine tirade - POLITICO
Feb 19, 2025 · “There is no [moral] equivalency between Vladimir Putin and President Zelenskyy,” Tillis told reporters. “President Putin is evil, and he has to ...Missing: equivalence | Show results with:equivalence
[57]
Rep. Panetta Authors and Leads Bipartisan Resolution in the U.S. ...
Feb 24, 2025 · As the Administration seeks to forge a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine, we must reject any moral equivalence between Russia's ...
[58]
Moral Equivalence and Ukraine - Lawfare
Apr 20, 2022 · Moral Equivalence and Ukraine. Gabriel Schoenfeld. Wednesday, April ... He now says, “Russia's invasion of Ukraine was shocking, it was ...
[59]
False Equivalence - Logically Fallacious
An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not.
[60]
Moral Relativism and Moral Realism - VoegelinView
Apr 9, 2021 · Moral relativism believes all moral perspectives are equal, while moral realism believes good and evil exist and are not matters of opinion.
[61]
[PDF] What is Moral Relativism? - PhilArchive
Moral relativism has three versions: normative, judgment, and meta-ethical. Meta-ethical relativism suggests conflicting moral judgments can both be right.
[62]
Why Relativism is the Worst Idea Ever | Blog of the APA
Jul 29, 2021 · For instance, moral relativists will typically condemn the belief in universal moral standards as a form of 'cultural imperialism', the implicit ...
[63]
What are the most interesting rebuttals against moral relativism?
Mar 20, 2018 · Moral relativism is illogical and self-refuting. If a moral relativist claims there are no moral absolutes, why do they use absolutes such as ' ...What's the best way to refute moral relativism? - QuoraWhat are the three main arguments of moral relativism ... - QuoraMore results from www.quora.com
[64]
[PDF] The Incoherence of Moral Relativism - CUNY Academic Works
Moral relativism states moral values are relative to culture, with no ultimate right or wrong. This paper argues it is incoherent, as no culture is superior.
[65]
Moral Relativism Theory | Arguments, History & Types - Lesson
In short, arguments against moral relativism include the claim that there is significant moral agreement, and tolerance itself is a universal moral value. Moral ...<|separator|>
[66]
A Refutation of Moral Relativism—Transcription - Peter Kreeft
A fourth argument is that moral relativism alone guarantees freedom, while moral absolutism threatens freedom. People often wonder how they can be truly free if ...
[67]
Countering Moral Relativism - Seven Pillars Institute
Aug 27, 2018 · To counter moral relativism, we turn to moral objectivity, a doctrine that emphasizes the existence of singular moral truths and values.
[68]
Ukraine Must Be Allowed to Hit Inside Russia to Stop a Possible ...
Jan 18, 2023 · Simultaneously, it has both a moral and military duty to enable Ukraine to strike the factories Russia utilizes to produce rockets and ...Missing: implications | Show results with:implications
[69]
If Ukraine Gives Up Land Today, Russia Will Tomorrow
Dec 11, 2023 · Put aside falsities about supposed Ukraine and Russia moral equivalence or naive hope that peace with Putin is even possible, especially if the ...Missing: implications | Show results with:implications
[70]
Beware False Moral Equivalence Between Israel and Hamas Militants
Sep 4, 2024 · There is no equivalency between those who deliberately kill and those who cause unavoidable killing even when following the law.
[71]
False equivalence and false balance - Media Helping Media
Discuss the potential consequences of using false equivalence and false balance in media. Why is it important for journalists to test the validity of ...
[72]
The Truth About 'False Balance' - The New York Times
Sep 10, 2016 · False balance, sometimes called “false equivalency,” refers disparagingly to the practice of journalists who, in their zeal to be fair, present each side of a ...
[73]
Why journalistic 'balance' is failing the public
Nov 25, 2016 · You can't blame them. The concept of “balance” – or as its critics refer to it “false equivalence” – has long been a key precept of journalism.
[74]
Anderson | Can We Talk?: Communicating Moral Concern in an Era ...
Sep 30, 2022 · These forms of discourse activate and express esteem competition among rival identity groups, as well as ethnocentric fear and resentment. Such ...<|separator|>
[75]
Western Media's Moral Equivalence - City Journal
This time, however, the contrast between reality and media spin is too extreme, and the atrocities too shocking, even for casual observers to ignore.Missing: effects discourse
[76]
Moral Equivalence and the Heart of Politics - Public Seminar
Nov 2, 2016 · For while the “moral equivalence” partisans are, I think, dangerously indifferent to the uniqueness of what's at stake in this election, and ...Missing: discourse | Show results with:discourse