The University of Idaho Argonaut

One of my mother’s favorite sayings is “moderation in all things,” and I tend to agree with her. Extremes are usually not the wisest options. If someone were to ask my advice on how much to spend on entertainment, I would counsel moderation. If I were asked about eating junk food, using credit cards, watching television, pursuing hobbies or drinking, I would counsel moderation. Wisdom often demands a more careful, more nuanced, less rash decision that is not placed in absolute terms. However, there is a difference between wise moderation and superficial compromise.

Moderation is not the only thing that wisdom demands, and by itself it is meaningless. Wisdom also demands some measure of conviction and recognition of absolutes. Of course, not all will agree on just what those absolutes are, but they must exist. It would seem obvious, then, that if we hold some morals to be absolute, wisdom will demand rejecting things which defy those morals.

The problem with claiming that the most reasonable solution is generally found in the middle ground is that the middle ground changes depending on who is talking to whom. If I am talking to my pastor about abortion, the middle ground is likely very different than if I were taking to a Chinese population control official. It becomes even more ridiculous to support a “middle of the road” policy if we talk about real moral extremes. If one person is opposed to rape and another supports it, are we going to take a middle ground stance? Of course not. When we start applying the principle of moderation across the board it becomes ridiculous, and we realize that wise decisions are actually made based on moral principles.

We can try to save a middle ground policy by saying that it is the most reasonable policy and only happens to fall in the middle in this specific instance, but if that is the case, then why pretend at all? Why not claim reason as your basis, rather than moderation?

The reason it is important to understand the weakness of a policy based on taking the middle ground is that it often results in inconsistent or incoherent positions, and our politicians do it all the time as they attempt to straddle the fence and attract votes on each side. Bill Clinton is famous for saying that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.”

“What a wise, moderate, common-sense policy,” we cry. “Surely those on both sides can agree to such a measure.” However, the statement is nonsensical. If abortion is an unobjectionable medical procedure then why keep it rare? Why not use it whenever desired? If abortion is actually murder, then why would we settle for “rare,” let alone safe and legal? This attempt to take a moderate middle ground rejects the principles of both sides. If abortion is murder, then it is absolutely wrong, and it is not wiser to allow it while counseling against it. Who would say to Hitler “Your extermination camps are fine, but if it were our decision we would try to avoid them”?

There are evils in the world, there are things which need to be stopped, and not all positions can be moderated wisely. Found your positions on reason and principle, and not on assuming wisdom in the middle ground. That seems like common sense.