|  |
This term is part of a series of “word of the week” posts that focus on fallacies; logical errors in an argument. A false dichotomy is when someone makes a case and presents two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities. If one is true, the other must be false or, if you do not accept the one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between and alternative options not just two mutually exclusive ones.
One famous example of this was George W Bush when he declared in September 2001 that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists":
One famous example of this was George W Bush when he declared in September 2001 that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists":
To many this would be seen as an oversimplification of the situation; you could after all be an absolute pacifist who is not willing to take up arms against any one on ethical grounds and so you are with neither and against neither. You might be in favour of diplomatic negation with terrorists etc.
The false dichotomy remains a popular fallacy to utilise because it sounds dramatic and presents listeners with a stark choice (especially if accompanied with a reduction ad absurdum) that will only really offer one way forward. As philosophers and ethicists we need to be alert to its usage!
The false dichotomy remains a popular fallacy to utilise because it sounds dramatic and presents listeners with a stark choice (especially if accompanied with a reduction ad absurdum) that will only really offer one way forward. As philosophers and ethicists we need to be alert to its usage!
One area that I have seen it used a lot recently is when debating the difficult issue of Euthanasia with my GCSE group. I have found false dichotomies being used by both the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the argument:
“You either have Euthanasia, which allows people to die pain-free and with dignity, or you have no Euthanasia and everyone suffers intolerably and with a total loss of dignity” (Pro-Choice)
“If you allow Euthanasia then everyone will be killed as soon as they become terminally ill or over 70 years old – all valuing of life will be lost. Whereas, without a Euthanasia law the terminally ill are cherished and valued by society – which would you rather have?” (Pro-life)
Both of these arguments are flawed in that they offer a false dichotomy – the first ignores the fantastic work that palliative care can do, the second overstates (performs a reductio) what might happen if Euthanasia was legalised.
So, See if you can spot a false dichotomy this week!
So, See if you can spot a false dichotomy this week!
RSS Feed
