COFFEE.jpg (2219 bytes)

 

 

  

False Dilemma
 
Description:
 
The argument misrepresents the consequences of choices that are available when making a decision, or fails to present all the choices available.
 

 
Comments:
 
The term "dilemma" originally meant an argument with two major premisses (hence two "lemmas.") Because it has an uncharacteristic third premiss, it can be classified in different ways, depending upon which premiss commits the error. It is the only fallacy on my list that receives a double classification.
 

 
Examples:

"If we cut off funds for El Salvador, then we are caving in to the threat of international communism. If we increase military support for El Salvador we are supporting a brutal dictatorship. Either we increase military support or we cut off funds altogether. Therefore we must choose between caving in to communism and supporting a brutal tyranny."

"If the university builds a new Library, we will have to raise tuition to cover costs and enrollment will drop. If we don't build a new Library we could loose our accreditation and enrollment will definitely suffer. Either way, I wouldn't plan on our enrollment increasing next year. "
 

 
Discussion:

In a dilemma, as the word is popularly understood, every possible course of action has undesirable consequences. We are screwed no matter what we do. Of course, not all dilemmas are false. In some cases there really are no good options. However, such an argument is fallacious when it can be defeated in one of two ways:

Going between the horns - showing that the alternative courses of action are not exhaustive, and that some unstated alternative does not have undesirable consequences. In the above example, we can "go between the horns" by pointing out that we could keep military aid at the present level, or cut off military aid but increase economic aid.

Seizing one of the horns - showing that the supposedly undesirable consequences of one of the alternatives either does not follow at all, or is not really undesirable. In the above example, we might seize the first horn and claim that international communism is not such a serious threat as the argument would have us suppose; or we might seize the second horn and claim that the government of El Salvador has mended its ways.

A dilemma is made up of two hypothetical statements, and a choice between their antecedents. We can represent the form of the dilemma as follows:

       If A, then B.
       If C, then D.
       Either A or C.
       So, either B or D.

Let us assume (for the sake of simplicity) that one of the two hypothetical statements is in fact true, and therefore not the source of the fallacy. Let us also, for the sake of analysis, express the 'either...or...' statement as a hypothetical: If not-A, then C (and if not-C, then A). We also perform a transposition on the hypothetical statement that is still dubious. The dilemma can then be expressed as two hypothetical syllogisms:

      Major premiss:      If not-A, then C.
      Minor premiss:      If not-B, then not-A.
      Conclusion:           If not-B, then C.

      True hypothetical:  If C, then D.
      Final conclusion:    If not-B, then D (i.e. either B or D).

When the error is in the Major premiss, then the argument is defeated by "going between the horns." In that case, the argument is a deductive irrelevancy, obviously in the family of Middle Ground fallacies, similar to Black & White Thinking. On the other hand, when the error is in the Minor premiss, then the argument is defeated by "seizing one of the horns." In that case, the argument is a deductive misrepresentation, similar to Misrepresenting the Facts and Straw Man.

By the way, it doesn't matter which horn we seize, i.e. which hypothetical statement we hold as true and which we continue to question. The analysis is the same in either case. Curiously, while the term "dilemma" comes from the idea that the argument has two major premisses, the hypothetical statements actually function as minor premisses, at least as I analyze the form.

 
 
Classification: A deductive fallacy, double-classified either as a deductive irrelevancy in the Middle Ground Fallacies family or as a deductive Misrepresentation, depending on whether it is defeated by "seizing one of the horns" or by "going between the horns."
 
Source:  Please contact me if you can point me to a potentially useful clue regarding the original source of this fallacy.
 

 

Go to:     WELCOME     EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES     TABLE of  FALLACIES     EXERCISES     INDEX