# Is this a logical fallacy, and does it have a name? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 6, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667 "2008-10-06T13:55:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/1 "2008-10-06T13:55:59Z")
I’m having a debate – admittedly with a woefully ignorant lout, and I’m trying to think of the logical fallacy he’s committing by one of his statements, as I’m sure it must be one. His argument essentially takes the form of “A is not as bad as B or C, therefore A is OK.” Where A is bad, but B and C are much worse. I want to say something like “Appeal to a lesser evil,” but that’s not a recognized fallacy. His whole argument is a straw man anyway because this rebuttal has been constructed as an oversimplification of a larger point I was making of which this was merely one component that’s irrelevant on its own, but I’m sure that this in and of itself must be its own fallacy, isn’t it? Does it have a name? ---
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/2 "2008-10-06T14:03:54Z")
Just a slight correction. It would probably be more accurate to say that his argument takes the form of, “A is not as bad as B or C, therefore D,” where D is justification for A. ---
**Author:** ![minlokwat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minlokwat/32/2844_2.png) [@minlokwat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minlokwat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/3 "2008-10-06T14:19:25Z")
I’ve heard it referred to as “comparative morality”. Basically the mantra is: “What I’m doing isn’t so bad so long as I can find someone doing something worse.” It’s also often prefaced with the line: “Well at least she/he/it’s not as bad as…” amongst your weaker minded nefarious characters. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/4 "2008-10-06T14:22:24Z")
It may be a form of False Dilemma, if he is presuming that you must accept either A, B, or C, whereas you seem to want to reject all three of them. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/5 "2008-10-06T14:27:24Z")
Whether or not it’s a Fallacy depends on your point of view, however. Real Relativists might accept it, at elast whenever they feel like it. Objectivist (which has nothing to do with Ayn Rand) or Strict Teleological moral philosophers would find that logic nigh-ncomprehensible. Objectivist more or less says “there is right and wrong, but its application can vary in specific circumstances.” Strict Teleological would say “there is right and wrong, and thing is either right all the time or wrong all the time.” ---
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/6 "2008-10-06T14:28:25Z")
> [@minlokwat](#): > > I’ve heard it referred to as “comparative morality”. Basically the mantra is: “What I’m doing isn’t so bad so long as I can find someone doing something worse.” > > It’s also often prefaced with the line: “Well at least she/he/it’s not as bad as…” amongst your weaker minded nefarious characters. That’s definitely a possibility, yes, thanks. > [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > It may be a form of False Dilemma, if he is presuming that you must accept either A, B, or C, whereas you seem to want to reject all three of them. I had considered that, too, but the context in which it is used doesn’t explicitly exclude other options, he merely singled them out for rebuttal (the part that makes his entire rebuttal a straw man.) > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Whether or not it’s a Fallacy depends on your point of view, however. Real Relativists might accept it, at elast whenever they feel like it. Objectivist (which has nothing to do with Ayn Rand) or Strict Teleological moral philosophers would find that logic nigh-ncomprehensible. > > Objectivist more or less says “there is right and wrong, but its application can vary in specific circumstances.” Strict Teleological would say “there is right and wrong, and thing is either right all the time or wrong all the time.” In this particular instance, there is no doubt that A, B and C are always wrong all of the time. (Think theft (A) vs. rape and murder (B & C)) The argument he is trying to make is one of degrees, with the one on the lesser end of the scale justified as a result of there being items on the other end. This is itself irrelevant because the point being argued has nothing to do with degrees of wrong, but rather the wrongness of A in and of itself. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/7 "2008-10-06T14:46:39Z")
I might be the purely pragmatic error of thinking the rules of the real world must be logical: A is forbidden, but allowed activities B and C are worse, so either A should be allowed or A, B, and C should all be forbidden. The error is that the world doesn’t work that way. This isn’t a logical error, however. ---
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/8 "2008-10-06T14:56:41Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I might be the purely pragmatic error of thinking the rules of the real world must be logical: A is forbidden, but allowed activities B and C are worse, so either A should be allowed or A, B, and C should all be forbidden. The error is that the world doesn’t work that way. This isn’t a logical error, however. I could see this as being the case if we were talking about issues whose morality or legality differed from one nation to another. However, in this case, all issues here are wrong everywhere – there are no allowed activities in this argument that are perceived to be worse than another, outlawed activity. They’re _all_ outlawed, therefore universally accepted as wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Cagey\_Drifter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@Cagey\_Drifter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cagey_Drifter)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/9 "2008-10-06T15:07:25Z")
[This book](http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223305291&sr=8-1), about cognitive dissonance, describes the same thing with regards to the Watergate break-in. It’s an absolutely fascinating and almost hilarious passage (if it weren’t so disturbing)! If you go to the link, and then use the “search inside the book” function, and look up “Liddy” (as in G. Gordon Liddy), and go to page 35, you’ll see a description of exactly the same thing you are talking about. I can’t remember if the book actually gives a name for it, but at least in this section of the book, they simply describe it as ‘self-justification.’ Check out the passage, as I think you’ll get a kick out of describing it to your friend. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/10 "2008-10-06T16:51:20Z")
> [@Mindfield](#): > > I could see this as being the case if we were talking about issues whose morality or legality differed from one nation to another. However, in this case, all issues here are wrong everywhere – there are no allowed activities in this argument that are perceived to be worse than another, outlawed activity. They’re _all_ outlawed, therefore universally accepted as wrong. So your opponent accepts that A is wrong, yet he’s in favor of it? Ask him how he can be in favor of something that’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/11 "2008-10-06T16:55:06Z")
> [@Cagey\_Drifter](#): > > [This book](http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223305291&sr=8-1), about cognitive dissonance, describes the same thing with regards to the Watergate break-in. It’s an absolutely fascinating and almost hilarious passage (if it weren’t so disturbing)! If you go to the link, and then use the “search inside the book” function, and look up “Liddy” (as in G. Gordon Liddy), and go to page 35, you’ll see a description of exactly the same thing you are talking about. I can’t remember if the book actually gives a name for it, but at least in this section of the book, they simply describe it as ‘self-justification.’ Check out the passage, as I think you’ll get a kick out of describing it to your friend. That page was interesting in light of having heard Liddy in his morning radio talk show in the DC area. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/12 "2008-10-06T16:57:34Z")
> [@Cagey\_Drifter](#): > > [This book](http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223305291&sr=8-1), about cognitive dissonance, describes the same thing with regards to the Watergate break-in. It’s an absolutely fascinating and almost hilarious passage (if it weren’t so disturbing)! If you go to the link, and then use the “search inside the book” function, and look up “Liddy” (as in G. Gordon Liddy), and go to page 35, you’ll see a description of exactly the same thing you are talking about. I can’t remember if the book actually gives a name for it, but at least in this section of the book, they simply describe it as ‘self-justification.’ Check out the passage, as I think you’ll get a kick out of describing it to your friend. Sounds interesting. Would you quote a choice sentence or two for those of us who don’t have Amazon accounts? ---
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/13 "2008-10-06T17:11:02Z")
[Slight Hijack] Is there a name for the fallacy of “You can’t deal with small problems until all large problems are solved?” For example, Congressman So-and-So introduces a bill exempting drivers of empty school buses from having to stop at railroad crossings. The constituents back in the Congressman’s home district are outraged - after all, what with global warming, skyrocketing energy prices, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and the Iraq War, the Congressman has much bigger things on his plate that school buses and railroad crossings, and clearly the Congressman is an inept boob for focusing on such a small matter. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/14 "2008-10-06T17:27:23Z")
> [@HeyHomie](#): > > [Slight Hijack] > > Is there a name for the fallacy of “You can’t deal with small problems until all large problems are solved?” > > For example, Congressman So-and-So introduces a bill exempting drivers of empty school buses from having to stop at railroad crossings. The constituents back in the Congressman’s home district are outraged - after all, what with global warming, skyrocketing energy prices, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and the Iraq War, the Congressman has much bigger things on his plate that school buses and railroad crossings, and clearly the Congressman is an inept boob for focusing on such a small matter. I would also call that a version of the False Dilemma, since the constituents are presuming that it is impossible to deal with both small and large problems. ---
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/15 "2008-10-06T17:37:26Z")
> [@Cagey\_Drifter](#): > > [This book](http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223305291&sr=8-1), about cognitive dissonance, describes the same thing with regards to the Watergate break-in. It’s an absolutely fascinating and almost hilarious passage (if it weren’t so disturbing)! If you go to the link, and then use the “search inside the book” function, and look up “Liddy” (as in G. Gordon Liddy), and go to page 35, you’ll see a description of exactly the same thing you are talking about. I can’t remember if the book actually gives a name for it, but at least in this section of the book, they simply describe it as ‘self-justification.’ Check out the passage, as I think you’ll get a kick out of describing it to your friend. Unfortunately I don’t have an Amazon account, and apparently they don’t let you search inside books without one. 😛 > [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > So your opponent accepts that A is wrong, yet he’s in favor of it? Ask him how he can be in favor of something that’s wrong. I think at some level he must accept that it’s wrong, especially since every law in every land says it is. However, he’s trying to justify his position as being “not all _that_ wrong” to the point that it should be considered acceptable behaviour in light of the fact that A) there is a lot worse out there (comparative morality works as well as any), B) What he is doing is hardly a drop in the bucket (argument of the beard), and C) A lot of people do it (bandwagon argument). Yes, he’s full of logical fallacies – I made a point of indicating them all (childish, I know), which is why I wanted to know if this one was a fallacy, too, since I already called him on the second and third. ---
**Author:** ![Cagey\_Drifter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@Cagey\_Drifter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cagey_Drifter)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/16 "2008-10-06T18:05:31Z")
Sorry, I didn’t know that you needed an Amazon account. You should also be able to see the passage I mentioned here as well: [http://books.google.com/books?id=Q-xxeolg09kC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=liddy+"mugging+squads"+mistakes+were+made&source=web&ots=MI0Auzs\_Ln&sig=aqUCTpWr0An6sv4eqFiW7WYmM6I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book\_result&resnum=1&ct=result](http://books.google.com/books?id=Q-xxeolg09kC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=liddy+%22mugging+squads%22+mistakes+were+made&source=web&ots=MI0Auzs_Ln&sig=aqUCTpWr0An6sv4eqFiW7WYmM6I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) Start with the passage that starts “And so…” ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/17 "2008-10-06T18:20:48Z")
Here ya go, took one for the team and retyped a bit of it for you: > [@That book](#): > > “If [Liddy] had come to us at the outset and said, ‘I have a plan to burglarize and wiretap Larry O’Brien’s office,’ we might have rejected the idea out of hand,” wrote Magruder. “Instead, he came to us with his elaborate call girl/kidnapping/mugging/sabotage/wiretapping scheme, and we began to tone it down, always with a feeling that we should leave Liddy a little something - we felt we needed him, and we were reluctant to send him away with nothing.” ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/18 "2008-10-06T18:33:46Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Here ya go, took one for the team and retyped a bit of it for you: As a method of persuasion, I have heard this referred to as the “door in the face method”: you get someone to agree to something they wouldn’t ordinarily approve of by preceding it with an outrageously objectionable request. I saw it in action once on the street in downtown L.A.: a panhandler approached me and said “Excuse me, can you spare one or two million dollars?” “No!” I said. “Well then, can you spare a few bucks to help a family get something to eat?” (I told him I didn’t have any money on me, which was true, and offered him the fast food I was holding. He turned it down.) ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/19 "2008-10-06T20:34:03Z")
> [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > you get someone to agree to something they wouldn’t ordinarily approve of by preceding it with an outrageously objectionable request. Also known as ‘politics’. ---
**Author:** ![K364](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k364/32/5_2.png) [@K364](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/K364)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2008, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667/20 "2008-10-07T00:16:28Z")
> [@HeyHomie](#): > > [Slight Hijack] > > Is there a name for the fallacy of “You can’t deal with small problems until all large problems are solved?” > > For example, Congressman So-and-So introduces a bill exempting drivers of empty school buses from having to stop at railroad crossings. The constituents back in the Congressman’s home district are outraged - after all, what with global warming, skyrocketing energy prices, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and the Iraq War, the Congressman has much bigger things on his plate that school buses and railroad crossings, and clearly the Congressman is an inept boob for focusing on such a small matter. Yes!.. This type of argument is used all the time: “You shouldn’t smoke in public because second-hand smoke is harmful to others”. Response: “What about the smog and pollution caused by trucks and buses and industry? It must be worse than my smoking” So I can’t do anything about public smoking until I solve all other pollution problems first :dubious: [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-logical-fallacy-and-does-it-have-a-name/466667.md?page=2)