Ok I’m a little confused as to how to ask this. I’m not even sure if it is considered a logical fallacy. But I figure there is a name for it. I have run into this several times recently. It is to dismiss one action as being too trivial because something much worse or more important also exists. I’ll give three examples. The second two I have heard recently the first is just an illustration.
“I am donating money to my local homeless shelter”
“Don’t you know that thousands are dying everyday in East Bumfuqistan? You should send your money there.”
“They are having a parade for the Giants.”
“How can they even think about having a parade for them before they have a parade for Iraqi War vets?”
“Sports stars make millions”
“How can they make millions when soldiers are risking their lives and being paid 20k a year?”
I’m looking for the debate shorthand to explain the problem with these arguments. There is always something that is bigger, badder, more important. Just because A is more important than B doesn’t mean B isn’t important necessarily. Hope I wasn’t too confused. Not looking for a debate on any particular issue, I’ve just run into that pattern of argument a lot lately.
I’d say it’s more of a rhetorical device since an actual equation isn’t being expressed, but there are shades of many informal fallacies there. It begs the question by assuming that A is more important than B. It employs inconsistency that appears in several informal fallacies.
ETA: This is something along the lines of what I would call the “Somebody think of the children” fallacy.
I see no sign of any fallacy in these examples, just disagreements about social and moral priorities. If the first speaker, in each case, can think of no good comeback to the second, that just might be because the second speaker has made a good case, or is even actually right. If the first speaker does not accept the implications of what the second is saying, then let them make their case. Who is right, in any disagreement of this form, is going to depend on the specifics of the situation, not on the form itself.
Maybe you really should be sending your donation to Bumfuquistan rather than the local homeless shelter. Maybe sports stars really are grotesquely overpaid relative to soldiers. If you don’t think so, no-one is preventing you from explaining why.
Now if the second speaker is not following up on the implications of their argument - is not donating (or trying to get you to donate) to Bumfuquistan, is not actively advocating for a parade for Iraqi vets, is not politically in support of measures to promote greater income equality (or better pay for soldiers) - then they may well be being hypocritical. Nevertheless, that does not make their argument fallacious. The actions they are implicitly advocating might be the right ones, even if they themselves are failing to carry them out.
This is similar to a false dichotomy. They are sort of acting like there are only two options: have a parade for the Giants or have a parade for Iraqi War vets.
The fallacy comes from the fact that there is no end to it. Why are you working as an engineer, you should be in the Peace Corps. Why support cancer patients you should support child cancer patients.
Yes that is definitely part of it. I was trying to explain that NYC has had over 200 such parades. They don’t have to stop because you happen to think there is a more important cause.
The fact an argument has uncomfortable consequences does not make it fallacious. Like I said, if you do not like the consequences, find the counterargument (if you can).
There is no fallacy here, but that does not mean the second speaker is always right. (Though sometimes they might be.) There may, for instance, be facts or considerations they have not taken into account. (Indeed, what they are doing themselves is, correctly, pointing out facts or considerations that the first speaker may not have taken into account. But there might be still further ones that point back to first speakers original position.)
Agreed. This is really a rhetorical device. I haven’t had a chance to look it up yet, but I’m sure it could be found at this excellent resource, Silva Rhetoricae.
It’s not a fallacy, it’s just an uncomfortable (and annoying) way of highlighting the fact that we often value our own interests over those of others, even though it can seems morally insensitive to do so when it’s pointed out. If you sympathize with a utilitarian view of moral action - that the most morally right action is to help whoever needs your help the most - then you should hardly keep any of your money yourself, because it could help so many people living in poverty in Africa more than it can help you.
It’s not comfortable to have it pointed out to us that for the price of our lawnmower we could have saved lives in Sudan, or that the cost of a Giants parade could have been used to help feed the homeless, or whatever example you want to use. But it’s not “fallacious”; it’s just unrealistic to expect anyone to really act like that.
Perhaps I should, if I were morally perfect, but at least I am not being being hypocritical about it by arguing that way and then doing nothing about it.
Where I see the fallacy is not arguing that A isn’t worth the time, effort or money. It’s saying A isn’t worth it because B is more important. To which I can say C is more important. Then you counter with D… It’s a way to argue the merits of A without ever addressing A. It’s at the very least intellectually dishonest.
I am reminded of my mother’s refrain, “Eat your lima beans, there’s children starving in China”. As if my eating the most vile substance on earth will prevent kids in China from starving, if there actually were starving kids in China at the time. I know the actual meaning of the phrase, that I should be grateful that I have lima beans to eat. But I still fail to understand why I should be grateful to be able to eat lima beans, which make a rotting skunk corpse sound appetizing.
