Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"Everything in moderation."
moderation is a good rule for things that affect only the person choosing, like sweets or hours of sleep. It doesn't work for harm to others: no one defends stealing "in moderation". The middle ground between causing a harm and not causing it is still causing a harm. The middle position isn't automatically the most reasonable.
Short answer
Moderation makes sense for things that affect only you, like sweets or coffee. For harm to others, it doesn't: no one defends stealing or assaulting "in moderation". The middle ground between causing a harm and not causing it is still causing a harm. And not hurting someone isn't an extreme; it's the starting point. Eating less meat is better than eating more, but that doesn't make what's left justified.
For children
Eating candy "in moderation" makes sense: a little won't hurt you. But hitting classmates "in moderation"? That makes no sense, because hurting others doesn't become right just because it's a little. When someone gets hurt, the best thing isn't to hurt them less: it's not to hurt them.
"Is there anything you think is wrong to do, even in moderation?"
Como pode aparecer
"Nothing to extremes."
"Balance is the secret."
"Extremes are bad."
"Everything in moderation."
"Vegans are as radical as people who eat only meat."
"Virtue lies in the mean."
"I eat little meat; that's enough." (which is J12)
The strongest version
"Nothing to extremes. Balance is the secret. Extremes are bad."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Extreme positions tend to be unrealistic and to ignore complexity.
- P2Veganism is an extreme position; eating meat without limits is too.
- P3Virtue usually lies in the middle.
- CSo eating meat in moderation is the most reasonable position.
The strong version rests on an old and respectable idea: Aristotle saw virtue as a mean between excesses. The problem lies in P3 applied to this case: Aristotle himself said some actions have no mean.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2, which calls simply not causing a harm "extreme", and at P3, which doesn't hold for harm to others.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument applies moderation to a kind of choice where it doesn't work:
Kind of choice Does moderation make sense? Example Affects only the person choosing Yes Sweets, alcohol, screen time Causes harm to others No: the goal is to avoid the harm Theft, assault, cruelty - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's the false middle ground.
Assuming the position between two options is the right one is a fallacy. The middle between truth and a lie isn't an acceptable half-truth.
2. Not causing a harm isn't extreme.
The argument presents "not eating animals" and "eating animals without limits" as two symmetrical extremes. But not doing something that harms another is the starting point of ethics, not an excess.
3. Moderation is about the eater, not the eaten.
For the animal who dies, it makes no difference whether the person eating it is moderate.
4. Aristotle didn't apply the mean to everything.
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says some actions, like theft and murder, admit no mean: they are bad in themselves.
5. Reducing is better, but it isn't justifying.
Eating less meat reduces the harm, and that's good (J12). But what remains still needs a justification.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics*, book II Virtue is a mean, but some actions admit no mean Full text on Project Gutenberg; the example of actions with no mean, like adultery, is in book II - d
The strongest counter-reply: moderation is more realistic
The most serious version doesn't say moderation is the moral ideal, but that it's what most people can manage, and that asking for total abstention drives people away, while asking for moderation produces more harm reduction.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It's about strategy, not justification.
It can be useful to promote reduction as a step; that doesn't make the remaining consumption right.
It admits the ideal is something else.
If moderation is merely the realistic option, the ideal is still not causing the harm.
For those who can do more, moderation isn't an excuse.
Realism applies to those with real difficulties (E6).
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False middle ground
False symmetry
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Moderation applied to harm
Biases
Middle-ground bias
Intermediate options seem more reasonable
General literature on choice and the compromise effect
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "the middle ground between doing and not doing is the most reasonable".
If it applied to…AssaultTap to see
Assaulting in moderation would be reasonable
No one accepts this
If it applied to…RacismTap to see
Being racist in moderation would be balanced
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Cruelty to dogsTap to see
Mistreating a little would be the middle ground
No one accepts this
Contradictions
No one defends moderate violence.
Which shows the real criterion is species.
Abolishing slavery was "extreme" too.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Moderation is a real virtue in many areas, and rigid positions sometimes drive people away. It's also true that eating less meat is better than eating more, and that gradual change is, for many people, the most realistic path.
But
But moderation is a rule for looking after oneself, not for deciding how much harm to cause others. For whoever suffers the harm, there's no middle ground.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Philosophy
- Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, book II.