Lesson 36: Moving the Goalposts

Spot the Faulty Logic #

Parent: “Clean your room and you can play video games.” (Child cleans room) Parent: “Now do the dishes too.” (Child does dishes) Parent: “Now take out the trash.” (Child takes out trash) Parent: “Now organize the garage…”

Discussion: Talk with your teacher about this example. What’s happening with the requirements?

How/Why It’s Often Used #

Sometimes people aren’t willing to accept a conclusion no matter what evidence is presented. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they keep adding new requirements. Each time the original demand is satisfied, they create a new one, making it impossible to ever “win.”

This fallacy appears in debates, negotiations, and any situation where someone has set criteria for acceptance. It’s a way of refusing to accept evidence while appearing to be reasonable.

Moving the Goalposts in Action #

Did you spot the faulty logic? #

The parent kept adding requirements after the original task was completed. If “clean your room” was supposed to be sufficient for video games, new requirements shouldn’t be added after the fact. Criteria should be clear and stable.

Second Example #

“Prove to me that exercise is good for health.” (Shows scientific studies) “Those studies are too old. Show me recent ones.” (Shows recent studies) “Those aren’t from my country. Show me local studies.” (Shows local studies) “Well, those researchers might be biased…”

The Flaw #

No matter what evidence is presented, new objections are invented. If the criteria for acceptable proof keep changing, the person isn’t genuinely open to being convinced - they’re just finding endless excuses.