Extremes do not meet. Extremes are extremely far away from one another. And to be extremely good cannot be extremely bad. Whatever they may say.

It is said that extremes meet in the end. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Nothing meets less than extremes. Extreme cold and extreme heat, extreme poverty and extreme wealth, negative infinity and positive infinity, extreme left wing and extreme right wing. If you think they meet, please check your definitions. Values meet in the midpoint, extremes are qua definitione as far from one another as possible. When you yet again hear that extremes meet, stop the author of the statement, and discuss a meeting of Mother Teresa with Hitler.

Extremes are not necessarily and inevitably something bad, something we need to defend against and something what needs to be removed even at all costs. Let’s imagine an extreme supporter and an extreme opponent of slavery (let’s refrain from discussing the complexity of the definition of slavery and let’s imagine a black slave from before last century). Is there any sensible person who would argue that both of them want the same thing in the end? Not only these extremes do not meet, but it is apparently not true that both extremes are necessarily bad and a compromise has to be found.

Maybe I and all of my friends need help of a police psychologist, a government extremism specialist. Put a black person to the work and crack a whip, and everybody will go to streets to protest. Try saying the whip is too much, but that it is needed to find some compromise, and everybody will stay in the streets.

Try to find a compromise when it comes to murder. Murders are bad, but is it also as bad to be extremely against murders, as it is to extremely support them? Or are we going to be looking for a compromise? And what about theft? It should be obvious that a question presenting an extreme opinion as moral, defensible, correct, may exist.

Many people think it is moral and correct not to steal, not to murder, not to “initiate violence”. And if they consider this right, sometimes they advocate this opinion even absolutely, consistently – in an extremist way. If it is not right to steal, this therefore applies to everybody. Even if this seems unlikely to the majority, it is possible these people are right.

The truth does not lie somewhere in the middle, as the common proverb says. Compromise is not always the best solution. A Chinese friend of mine wisely said that if one person says 1+1=2, while another person says the result is 42, the truthful result is not 22 or somewhere “in between”. Even if the result of 2 was backed by one person and 42 by whole masses, it does not change a thing about the correct result. The effort to remove extremes would be utmost counterproductive. It will not bring a better result. And the right one will not even be stated.

In order not to be stated, too much attention is focused on whether an opinion is not extreme, and desperately little attention remains for the opinion itself. With no doubt there is a difference between an occasional willing person who supports rape only in exceptional weather conditions, and a practicing, persistent and consistent supporter of fight for female rape. However, both of them advocate the most horrible crime of all and we can do nothing but despise both of them, disregarding extremism and their attitudes. The nature of the issue is important. It is the same with the supporters of classical liberalism. One is not supposed to steal, period. No matter if a beggar or a king steals, it is a crime. If you beat another person, it is a crime, always. The nature of the issue is clear, but pushed way aside in the end. What became important is the degree of the advocate’s always standing firm on a period or word. If he does it extremely, he is suspicious. Because fighting a whole life for 1+1 being 2 is incomprehensibly a mark of rudeness, lack of judgement, detached view and a lack of broader cultural overview.

In social sciences, extremism is defined, if at all, so vaguely that anybody can hide anything behind it. Anything can be outside the “mainstream”. However, if status quo is the mainstream, i.e. the state with a hand constantly in our wallets, “reasonable” money printing, “adequate” limiting of the freedom of speech, state power growth in general and along the way new restrictions in private property use, well – who is not an extremist then? And if somebody refuses in a consistent manner all mentioned above, is that person an extreme extremist?

In the end, we are brought to a question – if those who say extremes meet, isn’t an extreme extremist in the end the same as an extreme non-extremist? Logical conclusions of such thinking are implosive. Extremes simply do not meet, and to be an extreme defender of morality cannot be punishable. All there is left is to finish the discussion about what is and what is not moral.