The language you're using seems like it is quasi-Aristotelian.
In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks of virtues as the mean between two extremes. In that context, he calls the ideal position "the Golden mean." For this model, he suggests courage which is somewhere between brashness and cowardice (EN 3.7). And for the person who knows their own character, they need to consciously overcompensate to approach that mean.
But the model is not the idea that there's a healthy middle between everything. As Aristotle makes clear, some things do not admit a mean or at least it's not something where we have clear poles. Aristotle speaks of these as "without a name" for one of the two extremes.
There is no mean between justice and injustice on the Aristotelian picture because justice picks out the name of the mean between we might say mercifulness and legalism (though Aristotle might not like that placement).
Injustice where it occurs is always unjust and wrong, so it's not part of a middle ground.