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