Additionally Often called: Must be Grateful Fallacy, Fortunate Fallacy
Description:
This fallacy happens when it’s argued that one thing isn’t dangerous (or as dangerous as claimed) just by asserting that it could possibly be worse. This fallacy is often used to dismiss considerations or complaints by merely asserting that it could possibly be worse. This fallacy has the next primary type:
Premise 1: Individual A claims that X is dangerous (to diploma D).
Premise 2: However individual B claims there are issues worse than X.
Conclusion: Due to this fact, X isn’t dangerous (to diploma D).
That is dangerous reasoning as a result of even when there’s something worse than X, it doesn’t observe that X isn’t dangerous or that it isn’t as dangerous as claimed. To make use of a foolish illustration, contemplate measurement. Whether it is claimed that one thing has a particular measurement, declaring that there are larger issues doesn’t refute this declare:
Premise 1: Ted claims that Sally is six ft tall.
Premise 2: However Andrew factors out that the solar is way bigger than Sally.
Conclusion: So, Sally isn’t six ft tall (or Sally has no measurement in any respect).
Whereas the dimensions analogy illustrates why that is dangerous reasoning, it additionally suggests why it may be interesting. It’s true {that a} bigger factor is bigger than a smaller factor and this will suggest that the smaller factor isn’t massive relative to the bigger factor. For instance, a big mouse is smaller than an elephant and it makes to say the mouse isn’t massive relative to the elephant. Likewise, a comparability between a comparatively minor evil and a better evil can lead one to wise infer that the minor evil isn’t that dangerous relative to the better evil. Nevertheless it doesn’t observe that the smaller factor lacks the claimed measurement or diploma of evil. In sum, even when there’s something worse, this doesn’t show that one thing isn’t dangerous.
As famous earlier, this fallacy is usually employed to dismiss or downplay considerations or complaints. This variant will be introduced as having this way:
Premise 1: Individual/Group A expresses concern or complains about X.
Premise 2: Individual/Group B claims Y is worse than X.
Conclusion: Due to this fact, A has no grounds for concern or criticism about X.
That is dangerous reasoning as a result of it doesn’t observe that the existence of one thing worse proves that there aren’t any grounds for criticism or concern about lesser evils. If this had been good reasoning, then it could suggest that folks would solely be warranted in complaining or caring concerning the worst factor attainable, which have to be one thing infinitely infinite in its badness. This is also seen as a type of False Dilemma wherein the one two choices are being unjustified in complaining or being justified in complaining if it’s the worst factor. However this isn’t to say that each one refutations of considerations or complaints have to be fallacious.
There will be affordable arguments geared toward exhibiting complaints or considerations should not well-founded or are overblown. A technique to do that is by making affordable comparisons and drawing a well-founded inference about relative ranges of badness, issues which might be missing on this fallacy. However this reasoning goes far past “pure” logic and therefore past the scope of this work.
This fallacy can also be usually introduced with a slight variation in wording. As an alternative of claiming one thing like “it could possibly be worse”, the phrasing will be one thing like “you’re fortunate that it isn’t worse” or “try to be grateful for…” This method includes “refuting” a criticism or concern by asserting the individual or group is fortunate it isn’t worse or ought to be grateful that it isn’t worse. The poor reasoning is the It Might Be Worse Fallacy, however there’s the extra reference to luck or gratitude geared toward giving it a lift in psychological drive. This variant has the next construction:
Premise 1: Individual A expresses considerations about X or complains about X being dangerous.
Premise 2: Individual B says that it could possibly be Y slightly than X.
Premise 2: Individual B says that A is fortunate or ought to be grateful as a result of Y is worse than X.
Conclusion: X isn’t dangerous (A has no grounds for considerations or criticism).
That is poor reasoning as a result of the truth that an individual or group is claimed to be “fortunate” that it isn’t worse doesn’t show that it isn’t dangerous or worthy of criticism. Whereas the reasoning is similar as the usual model of this fallacy, the Fortunate Fallacy and Must be Grateful fallacy variants add an additional psychological issue supposed to provide them extra psychological drive.
The Fortunate variant makes an attempt to steer by making an attempt to make the dangerous factor appear much less dangerous (and even optimistic) just by claiming that it’s fortunate that it was not worse. This variant will get its psychological drive from the truth that it’s higher to endure a lesser evil than a better evil; however this doesn’t entail {that a} lesser evil isn’t evil nor worthy of criticism.
There may be non-fallacious reasoning that does resemble this dangerous reasoning. This might usually happen in conditions wherein a worse end result was probably and rational consideration reveals that the much less dangerous end result was “fortunate” (towards likelihood). This reasoning doesn’t contain merely dismissing complaints or inferring that one thing isn’t dangerous as a result of it could possibly be worse, so it does keep away from this fallacy. For instance, if I get hit by a automotive whereas operating and solely endure a damaged leg once I may have been killed, I might be “fortunate” if my demise was a attainable end result. However my damaged leg would nonetheless be dangerous, and I might have purpose to complain {that a} automotive hit me. Luck, in fact, is a topic in metaphysics and goes far past the scope of this work.
The Ought to Be Grateful variant tries to create and exploit the sensation of gratitude to steer the goal that one thing isn’t dangerous or that they don’t have any grounds for criticism. It will get its psychological drive from the truth that it may be affordable to grateful that one has suffered a lesser evil slightly than a better evil. However this doesn’t entail that the lesser evil isn’t evil or that it isn’t worthy of criticism.
There may be non-fallacious reasoning about gratitude that does resemble this dangerous reasoning. This might usually happen in conditions wherein a worse end result was probably, and somebody (or one thing) intervened to stop that. This reasoning doesn’t contain merely dismissing complaints or inferring that one thing isn’t dangerous as a result of it could possibly be worse, so it does keep away from this fallacy. For instance, suppose a driver tries to run me over and one other driver deliberately collides with them to attempt to cease them and in consequence I’m solely badly injured slightly than killed. I might be grateful to the motive force who saved my life. However it could not observe that my severe damage isn’t dangerous or that I’ve no grounds for criticism towards the motive force who tried to kill me. When gratitude ought to be felt is a matter of normative reasoning (normally ethics) and goes approach past “pure” logic.
Protection: To keep away from falling for this fallacy, the final protection is to remember that merely asserting that issues could possibly be worse doesn’t show that one thing isn’t dangerous or that there aren’t any grounds for concern or criticism. Whereas it’s affordable to maintain issues in perspective, this fallacy isn’t about doing that.
This fallacy will be self-inflicted however may also be used to attempt to persuade you that the evil you face isn’t dangerous (or as dangerous as you declare) or that you don’t have any grounds for concern or criticism. The Fortunate and Grateful variants may even be used to attempt to persuade you that the obvious evil you face is definitely a very good factor (or the very best you may count on). Whereas it’s affordable to contemplate when you’ve gotten been “fortunate” or ought to be grateful, mere assertions about luck or gratitude are simply that, mere assertions.
When self-inflicted, this fallacy is usually mixed with Wishful Considering, so try to be on guard towards that as effectively. For instance, an individual who has a horrible job may inform themselves that they’re fortunate to also have a job and that they need to be grateful that they had been employed in order that they really feel higher about their terrible job. They may interact in Wishful Considering by believing these claims as a result of they need them to be true; in any other case, they would wish to face the reality.
This fallacy may also be used to try to steer you that the plight of others isn’t dangerous (or as dangerous as they declare) or that you shouldn’t take their complaints or considerations severely as a result of they’re “fortunate” that issues should not worse for them or that they need to be glad about what they’ve (that issues should not worse). For instance, a pundit may use this fallacy to attempt to persuade their viewers that the plight of underpaid staff isn’t that dangerous as a result of different staff have it even worse. This pundit may additionally use the fallacy to attempt to persuade their viewers that the complaints of those staff lack benefit just because they’re “fortunate” to have jobs and so they “ought to be grateful” {that a} enterprise employed them. The protection towards this use is to keep in mind that merely asserting that issues could possibly be worse, that somebody is fortunate, or that somebody ought to be grateful doesn’t show that one thing isn’t dangerous or that there aren’t any grounds for criticism. Whereas it’s affordable to contemplate issues of “luck” and when gratitude is suitable, somebody merely making such assertions doesn’t show their declare.
To keep away from mistakenly accusing others of committing this fallacy additionally, you will want to contemplate their intent once they say, “it could possibly be worse”, “you’re fortunate” or “try to be grateful.” For examples, these phrases are sometimes utilized in makes an attempt to make individuals really feel higher about one thing dangerous that has occurred. For instance, years in the past I tore my quadriceps tendon when a ladder I used to be climbing failed, and I used to be informed that “it may have been worse.” Those that mentioned this had been definitely proper; a buddy of mine died after a fall final yr. On this scenario, they weren’t committing a fallacy. It’s because they had been trying to make me really feel higher slightly than making an attempt to “show” that my damage was not dangerous. Whereas I used to be definitely grateful that I had “solely” suffered a quadriceps tear, I didn’t discover a lot comfort in figuring out that worse issues may (and do) occur.
Instance#1
Sam: “When she will get mad, my spouse hits me. I must get away from her.”
Ted: “Nicely, it could possibly be worse. Some husbands get killed by their wives.”
Sam: “So I ought to keep along with her?”
Ted: “Yeah, try to be grateful you’ve gotten a lady who will put up with you in any respect.”
Instance #2
Tucker: “These ungrateful Amazon staff have been complaining that they have to pee in bottles to maintain to their schedules. Additionally they whine about low pay. Nicely, I say that they need to be grateful that they’ve jobs. They’re fortunate they aren’t dwelling on the road. So, they need to shut up and cease speaking about unionizing.”
Instance #3
Claudius: “I’ve heard some Christians complain about how they’re handled. Nevertheless it could possibly be worse. When Christianity was simply beginning out, Christians had been typically harshly persecuted. I imply, consider the martyrs executed by the Romans. So, these Christians immediately don’t have anything to complain about.”
Instance #4
Tucker: “So, these liberals are crying for the poor, saying that they don’t get sufficient meals, well being care or earnings.”
Laura: “I do know. So many tears. However when you concentrate on it, the poor immediately have issues that the Roman Emperors or medieval kings by no means had. I imply, a poor individual immediately could have a TV. Nero didn’t have a TV. A poor individual most likely has a microwave. King Arthur had Excalibur, however that may not make popcorn for him.”
Tucker: “Precisely. And a poor individual most likely has a mobile phone. Napoleon didn’t have a type of.”
Laura: “So poor individuals have gotten it good. I imply, can we even actually name them “poor” once they have all these treasures?”
Tucker: “Umm, I do like calling them ‘the poor.’”
Laura: “As do I.”
Instance #5
Rico: “Look, I do know you’re mad that your man misplaced the election…”
Rudy: “Had the election stolen from him.”
Rico: “Yeah…effectively…no less than he wasn’t arrested or, you recognize, executed for treason. It could possibly be worse.”
Rudy: “So?”
Rico: “So, you must shut up and be grateful about how fortunate you’re.”
Instance #6
Megan: “Whereas I agree that ladies are higher off now then they had been 50 years in the past, there are nonetheless many issues that ladies face due to how they’re handled. Girls are nonetheless paid lower than males even when there isn’t any related distinction and girls nonetheless must be afraid of being harassed and assaulted.”
Brett: “No matter. I hear girls complain about this and that. However issues could possibly be worse. Have a look at locations like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. You’re fortunate you get to drive and vote. Take into consideration that earlier than you begin whining about pay. Now get again on stage and work that pole.”
