This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a particular position must be accepted because those affected need “closure,” regardless of how morally or ethically questionable the position is. Sometimes the argument takes the form of, “Let’s just agree to disagree so we can move on,” even if one position is wrong. Not only will some issues never be settled, making decisions out of the need to move on may result in an ineffective solution. This is often seen in our legal system when a sentence is delivered, in part, so that those affected by the crime can receive some closure.

Examples:

“Society would be protected, crime would be deterred, and justice would be serviced with we sentenced you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some sense of closure for the families.”

“We need to make an arrest to give the family a sense of closure.”

“Let’s just agree to disagree.”