A Philosopher's Blog

Description:

Perfectionist Fallacy is another variant of the False Dilemma. In this case, the False Dilemma is between something being perfect or rejecting it. Since perfection is not possible, it is concluded that the thing must be rejected. It has the following form:

Premise 1: X must be perfect, or it must be rejected (when there are other options).

Premise 2: X is not perfect.

Conclusion: Therefore, X must be rejected.

The fallacy can also occur when the standards are unreasonably high:

Premise 1: X must meet unreasonably high standards, or it must be rejected (when there are other options).

Premise 2: X does not meet the unreasonably high standards.

Conclusion: Therefore, X must be rejected.

A person might believe that perfection or other unreasonably high standard is required and commit this fallacy in good faith. But the fallacy is usually used as a bad faith argument to reject something. Since the extreme form of this fallacy is obviously fallacious, someone intentionally using this fallacy will usually not explicitly require perfection. Instead, they will start with unreasonably high standards. If these standards are somehow met, they will often use Moving the Goalpost to change the standards until they cannot be met.

In such cases, the person committing the fallacy knows they are intentionally requiring an unreasonably high standard and are hoping the fallacy will go undetected. This is a form of False Dilemma because it occurs when there are other viable options beyond perfection (or unreasonably high standards) or nothing. This fallacy is often used in political debates when one side opposes a proposed law. They will argue in bad faith that the new law would not perfectly solve the problem and hence the law should not be passed.

It is not a fallacy to require that something meet reasonable standards or be rejected. There can be good faith debates about what counts as a reasonable standard, so merely having high standards does not entail that this fallacy has been committed. For example, while a hospital administrator should not expect a perfect back-up power system, it would be reasonable for them to expect a reliable system that could power the hospital for an adequate amount of time. How reliable and how long lasting the system must be can certainly be debated.

As another example, it is reasonable and wise to assess a proposed law to determine if it would be effective and beneficial. If there are good reasons to believe that the law would not effectively address a problem, then it would be reasonable to consider other alternatives. One should also consider that there can be times when a poor solution is better than none.

Defense: To avoid falling for (or unintentionally committing) this fallacy, the main defense is assessing whether the required standards are reasonable or not. If the standards are unreasonably high, then this fallacy has (probably) been committed.

When you suspect someone is committing this fallacy in bad faith, one way to test this is to consider what standards they apply in similar cases. For example, people who use this fallacy to argue against passing a law they dislike generally do not apply the same standards to laws they like. As always, showing that someone is arguing in bad faith does not prove their claim is false or argument is fallacious (see the Bad Faith fallacy). But exposing bad faith and showing that someone does not accept their own fallacious argument or false claim can undercut the rhetorical force of their efforts.

Example #1

Herb: “Oh my God, another school shooting. This time over twenty people were killed. I know I say this after every shooting, but Congress needs to do something. We need laws passed like those in Australia, laws that have proven effective in reducing homicides. Also, suicides.”

Terry: “While I have thoughts and prayers for those families, we can never have enough laws to prevent all evil. Evil people do not obey laws. So people who want to shoot children will just get guns and do it, no matter how many laws we pass.”

Herb: “The laws don’t need to perfectly solve the problem.”

Terry: “Look, we can pass all the laws you want, but at the end of the day there will still be violence.”

Herb: “So, we should not pass any laws?”

Terry: “Exactly.”

Herb: “So, those anti-abortion laws should be repealed?”

Terry: “What? No.”

Example #2

Terry: “Thank goodness that pro-life laws are being passed. They will save so many children. We must always think of the children first.”

Herb: “Well, those laws might have good intentions behind them but…”

Terry: “But what?”

Herb: “While I have thoughts and prayers for those who are aborted, we can never have enough laws to prevent all evil. Evil people do not obey laws. So, people who want to get abortions will just do it, no matter how many laws we pass.”

Terry: “The laws don’t need to perfectly solve the problem.”

Herb: “Look, we can pass all the laws you want, but at the end of the day there will still be abortions.”

Terry: “So, we should not pass any laws?”

Herb: “Exactly.”

Terry: “So, those guns control laws you like should be repealed?”

Herb: “What? No.”

Also Known As: Continuum Fallacy, Sorites Fallacy

Description:

One variant of the False Dilemma is the Line Drawing Fallacy. In this fallacy, it is claimed that unless a precise line can be specified between two things, there is no line or difference between the two. The fallacy can be presented in this manner:

Premise 1: An exact line between X and Y must be drawable or there is no distinction between X and Y (when no such line must be drawn).

Premise 2: An exact line cannot be drawn between X and Y.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no distinction between X and Y.

This is a form of the False Dilemma because it erroneously presents the target with two choices that are not the only two options. In this case, one option is drawing a precise line and the other is that there is no distinction.

When I first learned about this fallacy as an undergraduate, the examples were mostly academic constructs. For example, if you pull hair from a person’s head one at a time, you cannot specify the exact number of hairs you must remove before the person is bald. Therefore, you can never make a person bald by pulling out their hair. As another example, if you give a person one dollar one at a time, you cannot specify the exact number of dollars you must give them before the person is rich. Therefore, you can never make a person rich by giving them one dollar at a time.

In 1990, however, this fallacy featured prominently in the trial of the officers who beat Rodney King providing the first example I knew that showed this fallacy can have serious consequences. The reasoning used by the jury can be presented as follows:

Premise 1: The first time King was struck was not excessive force.

Premise 2:  If excessive force was used during the beating, then there must be a specific strike at which point the force went from warranted to excessive.

Premise 3: This strike cannot be identified.

Conclusion: The force used in the beating did not become excessive.

While it is (probably) true that the exact point of transition cannot be determined, this is not necessary to determine that it eventually became excessive.

Defense: The main defense is to consider whether an adequate reason why an exact line must be drawn for there to be a distinction between the two things. If not, then it is a false dilemma. If so, then the dilemma (could be) real.

Example #1

Zeno: “So, my friend, if you remove a single grain of sand from a heap of sand, will it cease to be a heap?”

Hugh: “No.”

Zeno: “Aha, so even a single grain of sand will be a heap.”

Hugh: “What? No. Surely not.”

Zeno: “Consider my logic. You agreed that removing one grain from a heap will not cause it to cease being a heap. What about a second grain? A third?”

Hugh: “Um, still a heap.”

Zeno: “What, then, is the exact number of grains that must be removed before the heap ceases to be a heap?”

Hugh: “No idea.”

Zeno: “Exactly. So, removing every grain of sand but one from the heap will mean it is still a heap.”

Also Known as: Fallacy of Lost Contrast, Fallacy of the Suppressed Relative

Description:

This fallacy occurs when a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) is redefined, in an unprincipled way, to include the other (thus eliminating it).

The fallacy has the following general form:

Premise 1: X and Y are correlatives.

Premise 2: X is (re)defined, without adequate justification, so that it includes Y.

Conclusion: There is no distinct Y.

This is fallacious because no adequate justification is given for accepting that Y must fall under the definition of X. A common example of this occurs in the debate over whether people are always selfish or occasionally altruistic. The usual error is to simply define “selfishness” so broadly that it eliminates all possibility of altruism. To illustrate, someone might define “selfishness” in terms of doing something because you think it is in your interest and then claim that there is no altruism, because any rational action is done in what a being thinks is its interest. As with any fallacy, the conclusion might be true; but it is not supported by the argument given. In this example, it cannot simply be assumed that this (probably question begging) definition is correct. This fallacy will often rest on definitions that are too broad (includes too much). For a discussion of the basics of good definitions, see the Straw Man: Balloon Man fallacy.

This fallacy could also occur when the (re)definition of X does not eliminate Y, but expands X in an unprincipled way to include what would otherwise be a Y.

This fallacy can be committed in ignorance when the person doing so does not realize that they have failed to provide adequate support for their (re)definition. It can also be committed intentionally in bad faith. For example, someone might use this fallacy to intentionally commit this fallacy to argue that there is only selfish behavior to rationalize their own selfishness.

Defense: The defense against this fallacy is to not accept a (re)definition of a correlative without considering the justification being offered for this (re)definition. It should also be kept in mind that attempting to (re)define a correlative need not be fallacious; it is the unjustified (re)definition that is fallacious.

Example #1

Scrooge: “I believe that everyone is greedy. There is no generosity.”

Donald: “But people are often generous, even with strangers. People have helped me out a lot, even strangers who had nothing to gain.”

Scrooge: “Oh, they all got something. A person is greedy when they get something from doing something.”

Donald: “So what did they get? Like what did the person who gave me $10 when I was short of money when I was buying my insulin?”

Scrooge: “They got to feel superior to you and show off in front of other people. ‘Oh, look at me! Look at how generous I am!’”

Donald: “Well, what about those anonymous donations I got when I had to do a fundraiser to afford medical treatment? They didn’t get any attention for that.”

Scrooge: “Heck, they got something better than attention: the smug feeling of thinking they did a good thing without any credit. They are greedy for that feeling.”

Example #2

Oscar: “Nature creates art.”

Immanuel: “Well, I suppose that could be true metaphorically.”

Oscar: “No, I mean literally. Art includes all that causes feelings in feeling beings! And nature does that. Think of a sunset! Think of the sea!”

Immanuel: “Think of bee stings and earthquakes.”

Oscar: “Yes!”

Immanuel: “I don’t think those would be art.”

Oscar: “Nonsense! The sting of a bee creates feelings! An earthquake creates many feelings!”

Description:

The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a person uncritically generalizes based on the amount of attention or coverage something receives in the media (including social media). A common instance of this fallacy involves erroneously inferring that the instances focused on by the media represent the qualities of the general population. This reasoning has this form:

Premise 1: Xs with quality Q receive extensive attention or coverage in the media.

Conclusion: Therefore, all or most Xs have quality Q.

This line of reasoning is fallacious since the mere fact that someone or something attracts the most attention or coverage in the media does not mean that it must represent the general population of which it is a member. For example, suppose a mass murderer from Old Town, Maine received a great deal of attention in the media. It would hardly follow that the town has a significant population of mass murderers.

This fallacy can also involve drawing an inference about the likelihood of something occurring based on the extent of the attention or coverage it receives in the media. The flaw in the inference is to conflate the amount of attention something receives with the probability that something will occur. It has this form:

Premise 1: X receives extensive attention or coverage in the media.

Conclusion: Therefore, X is likely to occur.

This is fallacious reasoning because the amount of coverage or attention something receives in the media is distinct from how likely something is to occur. To use a silly example, if a person won two major lotteries, got hit by lightning and bit by a shark on the same day, they would get a lot of media attention. But no one would think that the coverage indicates how likely it is all those things would occur. But in other cases, people do fall for this fallacy.

One reason is that the availability heuristic cognitive bias fuels this fallacy. This bias is the tendency to confuse the availability of information with its importance or significance. If people already know that an event is improbable or its improbability is emphasized in the coverage, then this bias can be overcome. But if people are unaware of the likelihood of an event or the coverage tries to create the impression that it is likely, then people can easily fall for it.

The Spotlight fallacy derives its name from the fact that receiving a great deal of attention or coverage is often referred to as being in the spotlight. It is like Hasty Generalization, Biased Sample and Misleading Vividness because the error being made involves generalizing about a population based on an inadequate or flawed sample. In many cases, the Spotlight Fallacy will combine all three of these other fallacies: the sample will be too small to warrant the conclusion, the sample will be biased because of how (social) media attention is directed, and the focus will be on things that are vivid or extreme. For brief discussions of adequate samples and generalizations, see the entries for Hasty Generalization and Biased Sample.

This fallacy can also be fueled by bias. If someone is biased against a group, they will be inclined to think that those who receive the most negative media attention represent that group. For example, if someone dislikes those who oppose abortion, they might be inclined to think, based on media coverage, that many anti-abortion activists are willing to kill for their cause. The bias can also be positive, so that a person will infer that positive media coverage of a group they like is representative of that group.

While this fallacy is self-inflicted, people can encourage others to fall for it by using various other fallacies, rhetorical techniques or simply by lying to enhance the psychological force of the fallacy.  One particularly insidious way this fallacy is used is when someone releases bad faith information through the media and then uses the coverage to “prove” their bad faith claims by referring to how much media coverage it is getting. Attempting to intentionally inflict this fallacy is a common practice in the media and it is often done to advance a bad faith narrative. For example, it would be easy to create the impression that shoplifting is a major threat by getting media to shine the spotlight on the matter and thus encourage people to fall for this fallacy.

While less common than the standard version of this fallacy, a person can also fall for a Reverse Spotlight. This occurs when someone uncritically infers that something must be unlikely or that a sample is not representative because it is getting extensive coverage. This fallacy is often fueled by a distrust of the media source. For example, someone might infer that school shootings are less likely to occur than they are because they think the media is pushing an anti-gun agenda and hence focusing on such stories.  While it is wise to be rationally critical of all media, it is also wise to avoid falling for this fallacy.

Defense:  The main defense against this fallacy is being aware that the extent of media coverage or attention is not a reliable indicator of how likely it is that something will happen. It is also not the basis for a good sample from which to generalize. One way to help defend against this is to remember that it is usually unusual, rare, or extreme cases that get the most media coverage. But you should be careful to avoid “reversing” this fallacy and inferring that something is unlikely or that a sample must not be representative just because the media is covering it.

As with defending against Misleading Vividness, knowledge of the subject is also useful. For example, being aware of crime statistics can provide the foundation of a defense against falling for this fallacy when there is a campaign to create the impression that there is an epidemic of shoplifting.

Example #1

Bill: “Jane, you say you are a feminist, but you can’t be.”

Jane: “What! What do you mean? Is this one of your stupid jokes or something?”

Bill: “No, I’m serious. Over the summer I saw feminists appear on several talk shows and news shows and I read about them in the papers. The women were bitter and said that women were victims of men and needed to be given special compensation. You are always talking about equal rights and forging your own place in the world. So, you can’t be a feminist.”

Jane: “Bill, there are many types of feminism, not just the brands that get media attention.”

Bill: “Oh. Sorry.”

Example #2

Joe: “Man, I’d never want to go to New York. It is all concrete and pollution.”

Sam: “Not all of it.”

Joe: “Sure it is. Every time I watch the news, they are always showing concrete, skyscrapers, and lots of pollution.”

Sam: “Sure, that is what the news shows, but a lot of New York is farmlands and forest. It is not all New York City; it just receives most of the attention.”

Example #3

Ann: “I’m not letting little Jimmy go online anymore!”

Sasha: “Why not? Did he hack into the Pentagon and try to start World War three?”

Ann: “No. Haven’t you been watching the news and reading the papers? There are perverts online just waiting to molest kids! You should keep your daughter off the internet. Why, there must be hundreds of thousands of sickos out there!”

Sasha: “Really? I know we should monitor our kids’ online activities, but that seems like a huge number.”

Ann: “I’m not sure of the exact number, but if the media is covering it so much, then most people who are online must be dangerous predators.”

Example #4

Melinda: “They are closing that Walgreens this week.”

Jackie: “Why?”

Melinda: “Well, shoplifting has been a big problem. For months I’ve been seeing all these stories and posts about how shoplifting is running rampant. Have you seen those videos of people just looting stores?”

Jackie: “I have; usually the same few videos over and over. I was curious, so I looked up the crime statistics.”

Melinda: “Boring! Look, if shoplifting is making the news so much, it must be a real problem.”

Description:

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person claims there is an exemption to a general or universal principle (rule, law, policy, etc.) without adequately justifying this exemption.  The fallacy has the following general form:

Premise 1: Principle P applies generally or universally.

Premise 2: No reason or irrelevant reason R is given that P does not apply to A.

Conclusion: A is an exception to P.

This is fallacious reasoning because simply asserting that there is an exception to a general or universal principle does not support this conclusion. This fallacy most commonly occurs when a person attempts to exempt themselves (or someone else) in an unjustified way from a principle (or principles) they accept as generally applying to the circumstances in question. This version can be presented with this form:

Premise 1: Person A accepts Principle P and applies it in circumstance C.

Premise 2: Person A is in circumstance C.

Premise 3: Person A offers no reason or an irrelevant reason R for an exemption to P.

Conclusion: Therefore, Person A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet provides no or an irrelevant reason for this exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

Premise 1: Jane accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.

Premise 2: Although she murdered Bill, Jane claims she is an exception because she really would not like to be punished.

Conclusion: Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes being punished, this cannot justify the claim that Sally alone should be exempt from punishment. If it did justify an exception, it would apply to everyone and thus undercut the general principle. Since this fallacy occurs when the justification for the exception is inadequate, this leads to the obvious matter of determining when the exception is warranted. When addressing this, philosophers generally turn to the Principle of Relevant Difference.

From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading violates the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people should be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle seems reasonable; since it would not seem rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them.

To use a silly example, it would be odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5 and there is no reason at all for the difference in treatment.

The Principle of Relevant Difference does allow for different treatment. For example, if Henry barely works and Nancy is a very productive worker the employer would be justified in giving only Nancy a raise. This is because productivity is a relevant difference.

Since it can be reasonable to treat people (and other things) differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill’s turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner. Bill is offering a relevant reason for the exemption, and it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

While determining what counts as a relevant and reasonable basis for exemption can be a difficult task, offering no reason at all for an exemption would clearly be Special Pleading. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot reasonably claim to be exempt. This does lead to the normative and practical problem of determining when a difference is relevant and can justify an exemption.

Sorting out such matters goes far beyond “pure” logic and into the realm of the normative (ethics, law, religion, etc.). Because of this, there can be considerable disagreement about whether a pleading is special or not. Such disagreement can even occur in good faith. For example, when I went to college, I had to prove that I was registered with the Selective Service to get my federal financial aid. Female college students did not; women are exempt from signing up for Selective Service. Obviously, some people believe that a person’s sex is a relevant difference for being required to register but it could be argued that this difference is not relevant, and this is a case of Special Pleading.

While Special Pleading usually involves a person trying to get an unjustified exemption, this fallacy could also technically be used against someone to fallaciously argue that they are exempt from something they want to apply to them. For example, someone might accept a general principle of free expression, but engage in Special Pleading to fallacious argue that it does not apply to those they dislike. If they offered no reason, there would be no disputing the fallacy has been committed. But if they offer a reason, then the question arises as to whether the reason warrants the exemption.

Defense: To avoid committing the fallacy yourself, be sure to consider whether you really have a justification for the exemption you want to claim. To avoid falling for this fallacy when used by others, check to see if they are offering a relevant reason that justifies the exemption. This can take you beyond the realm of “pure” logic and into a debate in the normative realm, such as ethics or law. Be careful to not assume that just because you disagree with someone’s reasons that they must be committing Special Pleading. Likewise, be on guard assuming that a person is not engaged in Special Pleading just because you like the reason they give.

Example #1

Bill and Jill are married. Both Bill and Jill have put in a full day at the office. Their dog, Rover, has knocked over all the plants in one room and has strewn the dirt all over the carpet. When they return, Bill tells Jill that it is her job to clean up after the dog. When she protests, he says that he has put in a full day at the office and is too tired to clean up after the dog.

Example #2

Jane: “Turn of that stupid stereo, I want to take a nap.”

Sue: ‘Why should I? What are you exhausted or something?”

Jane: “No, I just feel like taking a nap.”

Sue: “Well, I feel like playing my stereo.”

Jane: “Well, I’m taking my nap. You have to turn your stereo off and that’s final.”

Example #3

Mike: “Barbara, you’ve tracked in mud again.”

Barbara: “So? It’s not my fault.”

Mike: “Sure. I suppose it walked in on its own. You made the mess, so you clean it up.”

Barbara: “Why?”

Mike: “We agreed that whoever makes a mess must clean it up. That is fair.”

Barbara: “Well, I’m going to watch TV. If you don’t like the mud, then you clean it up.”

Mike: “Barbara…”

Barbara: “What? I want to watch the show. I don’t want to clean up the mud. Like I said, if it bothers you that much, then you should clean it up.”

Example #4

Student: “Did you grade the paper I turned in?”

Professor: “I did. It was great. I really liked it.”

Student: “So I got an A?”

Professor: “No, an F. That is why we are having this talk.”

Student: “But why did you give me an F?”

Professor: “Well, I think the paper is great and I really liked it because I wrote it I guess you did not check to see who wrote it.”

Student: “I agree that plagiarism is wrong, but I really do not want to flunk this class.”

Professor: “No one does.”