Is the "middle ground fallacy" a logical fallacy?

[Gustaf]

Is the question whether it is logically invalid or whether it is logical?

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, since in many cases the middle ground actually is a reasonable course of action. So it isn't a logical fallacy the way a circular argument is.

[Gustaf]

Yes, it's an informal logical fallacy. There's nothing inherently better about a middle ground - in some cases it might be worse than the two extremes that it meets between.

Does that really make it a logical fallacy though? Especially since it seems context-bound. I imagine there could be contexts where the middle ground is better by virtue of being middle ground (such as when reaching a compromise, for instance).

It is true that being the middle ground is typically not a good argument for a position, I guess, but is it on the level of logical fallacy? If someone does think that it is a good argument is he more illogical than someone who has some other stupid argument for a position?

[Gustaf]

Yes, it's an informal logical fallacy. There's nothing inherently better about a middle ground - in some cases it might be worse than the two extremes that it meets between.

Does that really make it a logical fallacy though? Especially since it seems context-bound. I imagine there could be contexts where the middle ground is better by virtue of being middle ground (such as when reaching a compromise, for instance).

It is true that being the middle ground is typically not a good argument for a position, I guess, but is it on the level of logical fallacy? If someone does think that it is a good argument is he more illogical than someone who has some other stupid argument for a position?

Yes it is a logical fallacy, but as I said it's an informal one. The distinction is that it's fallacious for reasons other than the form or technical structure of the argument. The reasoning behind a formal fallacy is always wrong - the logical structure of the argument renders it invalid. An informal fallacy on the other hand can have a valid logical structure, but may be based on false premises or a bad justification structure.

In the case of the middle ground fallacy it has the premise that the middle ground between two or more positions is always better than the two positions. The logic is sound if the premise it is based on is correct. Since it can be shown that there are cases where the middle ground isn't better than one or more of the positions the premise is false, thus making it an informal logical fallacy.

Is informal logical fallacy a common term? What you refer to as a formal logical fallacy is just a logical fallacy to me. I thought an informal one would be one where premises don't match exactly to another or something like that.

I always thought a false premise was just a false premise, so to speak. 

[Gustaf]

Except Moderate Heroism is basically always assuming the middle position to be correct, or some position in between the two usually held by people on opposing sides.

For example: In Nazi Germany the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews. Most of the resistance opposed were against killing Jews. So let's take the Moderate Hero position and only kill some Jews, or perhaps only deport instead of killing Jews. That's a good example of a middle ground fallacy position at work, which I doubt Gustaf would defend as reasonable. Another example includes the debate over slavery in the 19th century, abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery entirely, most from the Confederacy wanted to keep it exactly as is, many politicians took very Moderate Hero-esque positions such as merely banning slavery in new territories or restricting the slave trade somehow but allowing slavery to remain legal, which I doubt Gustaf would argue is a pretty reasonable position or anything besides total abolition.

Some Jews probably did deserve to be killed because they were murderers. And you can always move the extreme to be something else.

Let's define it as "All Jews are bad people" or "No Jews are bad people". Clearly the truth lies in the middle. "The state should have all power" "the state should have no power" again the truth, to most people, would be in the middle. All black people should be slaves versus all white people should be slaves. It depends on where you put the extremes.

What bothers me with this obsession is that it isn't as much of a problem as the opposite fallacy. The extremist position is almost always wrong and people take those positions for the strangest reasons, while the non-extremist position is almost always right and usually based on actually understanding the issue and all its nuances. Yet people on here spend endless amount of times ridiculing the latter while praising the former (as long as it isn't the opposite extreme, of course, which is also bad).

Every time someone on this site says something like "I don't think we should spend all of the federal revenue on pencils, although they government needs to have a few" everyone is OMG!1! moderate hero idiot!!1!

It's kind of stupid to me. Most issues are sufficiently complex that a completely black-and-white approach to them is just silly.

[Gustaf]

But slavery did get abolished by the moderate heroes. The radical absolutionists would never have been elected in the first place.

I would say that the thought process of taking extremist positions in order to be provocative or ideologically pure, like all the Republicans hating RINOs for bucking the party line on one issue, or taking a position diametrically opposed to that of one's perceived enemies without considering it is a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the supposed moderate heroism.