False dilemma

The (erroneous) assumption that there are only a limited number of possible courses of action in a given situation, when in fact there are more or more nuanced options available.

This can be expressed, for instance, in a statement like the following:

“Those who are not for us are against us.”

• False dichotomy
• Polarisation
• Either-or (fallacy)
• Black-or-white error
• Bifurcation

Outside of formal systems (such as logic or mathematics), there are only very few true contravalences (statements of the type “either A or B”); there is almost always at least a middle ground, a third option, or often even a variety of possible alternatives with different advantages and disadvantages.

If a speaker gives the impression that there are only two options, this is usually dishonest. At best, the intention is to distract from other possible options; at worst, the intention is to put pressure on you to make an unfavourable decision.

The situation is similar if the number of options is artificially limited to a different number. For example, as follows:

“There is no alternative to the decision I am recommending.”

The specification of a limited choice is justified if it indeed reflects the only available options.

“Natural numbers are either even or odd.”

Outside of formal systems, however, the number of possible options is usually much larger and an exhaustive description is rarely even possible.

Even where the options appear artificially limited, there are usually additional options. Consider Henry Ford’s famous quote:

„You can have a Ford in any colour – as long as it’s black.“

At that time, potential buyers of a Ford Model T (which this statement referred to) would certainly have been able to get other colours if they had spent enough money - if not from Ford directly, then certainly from third-party suppliers.

It is likely that everyone has had to write an essay in their school days, the topic of which was given in roughly the following form:

Napoleon – far-sighted statesman or proto-fascist?

If such a topic is given as an assignment, it would be a good first step to ask the question whether Napoleon could have been both at the same time – or possibly neither.

Named after Blaise Pascal, the argument that is known as “Pascal’s wager” is the idea that belief in God makes sense from a strictly rational point of view, and that this can be derived from a simple cost-benefit analysis:

Apart from the obvious point that, at best, an argument in favour of pretending to believe could be drawn from such an appeal to consequences, both the dichotomy of reward vs. punishment and the one of belief vs non-belief are false dichotomies, as other possibilities or aspects must also be taken into consideration:

• There is a God, but no or only an insignificant reward or punishment in the afterlife.
• There is a non-Christian God who punishes followers of the Christian faith as idol worshippers.
• There is a God, but the reward depends on the way of life and not on the confession of faith.
  • Variant: There is no God, but there is a mechanism by which one is rewarded or punished for a virtuous way of life (e.g. karma, reincarnation, etc.).

And not to forget:

• A possible conflict between a religious belief adopted on the basis of rational considerations and the actual personal belief system can lead to cognitive dissonance, which must be taken into account as a possible negative consequence.

It is certainly beyond the thematic scope of this website to discuss the extent to which all these possibilities are likely or make sense, but it should be noted that at least the third point was (and is) also seriously discussed in Christian theology, which Pascal should have been aware of.

Pascal’s wager is thus based on a series of at least disputable underlying assumptions, which artificially limit the number of possible alternatives to a series of dichotomies (e.g. “God exists”/“God does not exist”).

• “There is no alternative”
• Fallacy of eliminative induction
• Sorites fallacy
• Negation of a conjunction

• False dilemma on Wikipedia
• False Dilemma on Logically Fallacious
• The Black-or-White Fallacy on Fallacy Files