Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. It is an informal fallacy that draws comparisons between different things to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. The reasoning is flawed because it distorts issues and allows someone using the term to appear both objective and detached at the same time. The concept of moral equivalence is not a term of philosophy; rather, it is only a logical fallacy used in arguments.

The term "moral equivalence" began to be used as a polemic term-of-retort to "moral relativism", which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation-based application of widely held ethical standards. An early popularizer of the expression was Jeane Kirkpatrick, the US ambassador to the United Nations during the Reagan administration. Kirkpatrick published the article "The Myth of Moral Equivalence" in 1986, which sharply criticized those who she alleged were claiming that there was "no moral difference" between the Soviet Union and democratic states.

In summary, moral equivalence is a term used in political debate to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. It is an informal fallacy that draws comparisons between different things to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other.