Good day, all! I hope you’ve all been enjoying this series so far. If you’re new to the Logical Fallacies series, this is a series intended to define various logical fallacies and give some examples, so that readers can hopefully identify when they come across these arguments “in the wild” on the internet and the real world, and also examine their own thinking to avoid the pitfalls of these logical fallacies themselves.
Today’s logical fallacy: The False Dilemma (aka False Choice)
This fallacy is relatively simple: it attempts to reframe a debate as a binary either/or choice, often with extreme choices on either side. A classic example of this is “America: Love It or Leave It!”
Of course, there should be a lot of wiggle room for positions to exist between those two extremes. One could, for example, love America but recognize its flaws and want to fix them. The false dilemma is an attempt to shut down debate by attempting to limit it to an either/or choice, or to cast the other side in a bad light by trying to tie them to the most negative of the two choices (“If you’re against the war, you must hate our troops!”). It’s also used to try to force an audience toward a preferred choice.
It’s also important to note that both choices offered could be false, or both could be true. The key is that it’s trying to frame it as an either/or binary choice, not the specific truth or falsity of either choice offered.
Would you be shocked if I told you, yet again, that this is yet another common fallacy used in politics?
So let’s look at a few more examples:
“Go big or go home!”
Yup, false dilemma in a nutshell, here in this common phrase. Obviously, usually there’s a lot of room between go all in in a big way or going home.
“Vote for me if you want lower taxes!”
False dilemmas don’t always have to blatantly state the two positions it is trying establish to frame things. In this case, it’s implied that if you don’t “vote for me” you must be in favor of higher taxes.
“Pursue your dreams or stay in a job that makes you miserable!”
Well, some people, for various reasons, may not have the means or opportunity to pursue their dreams (lack of education, lack of funds, lack of opportunity, obligations like chronically ill family members or childcare needs, etc.). Or, maybe it could be that a change to a different job might not fulfill “the dream” but still be much more tolerable or fulfilling than the previous job that made you miserable. Lots of middle ground, plus one option that might not even be feasible for many.
There is a common example in the way media often frames the news. By presenting two sides of an issue (for example, a news show with two guests representing opposite views on an issue), the media may be creating a false dilemma situation in their coverage — there may well be acceptable middle ground between the two guests’ views, or maybe a third POV or other solutions that aren’t even mentioned. Now, keep in mind such coverage isn’t automatically a false dilemma but it is always good to be on guard against such binary choices.
And of course, keep in mind that if there literally ARE only two options, there is no false choice dilemma.
Tune in next time when we visit the Non Sequitur!
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp is an ongoing series. If you’re a latecomer to the series or have missed a past post in the series, or simply want to revisit a past post, here are the posts in the series, so far:
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Strawman
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Slippery Slope
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Begging the Question
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Poisoning the Well
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: No True Scotsman!