Moral equivalence

Moral equivalence is a term used in political arguments or debate. It is an informal fallacy. The phrase describes a kind of indirect proof, but the reasoning is flawed because it distorts issues. It 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 user of the term imagines a kind of independent position above or beyond the two contenders. The moral equivalence theory allows someone using the term to appear both objective and detached at the same time.
The general form of the context for the use of the trope is 
The concept of moral equivalence is not a term of philosophy; rather, it is only a logical fallacy used in arguments.
History.
It is usually used to suggest a moral or ethical hierarchy for two sides in a conflict -- that one is better or worse than the other. The term originates from a 1906 speech "" by William James.
The term's popular use was expanded by Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was US ambassador to the United Nations when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. In 1986, Kirkpatrick published "The Myth of Moral Equivalence" which responded to the argument that there was "no moral difference" between the Soviet Union and democratic states.