A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited
alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.
The options may be a position that is between two extremes or may be completely different
alternatives.
Phrasing that implies two options may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false
trilemma" if something is reduced to only three options, instead of two.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice.
This fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than
by deliberate deception.
Some philosophers and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous
and precise it isn't really a distinction."
An exception is analytic philosopher John Searle, who called it an incorrect assumption
that produces false dichotomies. Searle insists that "it is a condition of the adequacy of
a precise theory of an indeterminate phenomenon that it should precisely characterize that
phenomenon as indeterminate; and a distinction is no less a distinction for allowing for
a family of related, marginal, diverging cases."
Similarly, when two options are presented, they often are, although not always, two extreme
points on some spectrum of possibilities; this may lend credence to the larger argument
by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive of each other, even
though they need not be.
Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being collectively
exhaustive, in which case the fallacy may be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering
other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy
logic.
Examples Morton's fork
Morton's fork, a choice between two equally unpleasant options, is often a false dilemma.
The phrase originates from an argument for taxing English nobles:
"Either the nobles of this country appear wealthy, in which case they can be taxed for
good; or they appear poor, in which case they are living frugally and must have immense
savings, which can be taxed for good."
This is a false dilemma and a Catch-22, because it fails to allow for the possibility that
some members of the nobility may in fact lack liquid assets, as well as the possibility
that those who appear poor, may be poor.
False choice The presentation of a false choice often reflects
a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground
on an issue.
A common argument against noise pollution laws involves a false choice.
It might be argued that in New York City noise should not be regulated, because if it were,
the city would drastically change in a negative way.
This argument assumes that, for example, a bar must be shut down to prevent disturbing
levels of noise emanating from it after midnight.
This ignores the fact that the bar could simply lower its noise levels, or install soundproofing
structural elements to keep the noise from excessively transmitting onto others' properties.
Black-and-white thinking
In psychology, a phenomenon related to the false dilemma is black-and-white thinking.
Many people routinely engage in black-and-white thinking, an example of which is someone who
categorizes other people as all good or all bad.
See also
References
External links The Black-or-White Fallacy entry in The Fallacy
Files