RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2397Goal: $5000

Talk:Not as bad as

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon logic.svg

This Logic related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

Considering how often this fallacious argument pops up....

You know, I wouldn't mind if people used this kind of reasoning if they actually took what they were saying seriously and acted upon it. Poverty, war and global warming are worse than unequal pay? Then let's focus all of humanity's efforts on solving those big issues so we can move on to the smaller issues! But instead people use it as an excuse for non-action. *facepalm* (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Schmidt Sting Pain Index[edit]

[1] It appears to be the most scientific of these examples it is largely accepted; even if it's the opposite of a fallacy. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's accepted; what matters is that the article is about moral equivalence rather than quality assessment. SophieWilderModerator 18:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fallacy Fallacy[edit]

This is the Fallacy that occurs When one comes across an assertion with which one cannot agree and one invents a fallacy to describe it. For example the fallacy of relative privation is usually invoked by a moralizer who is mocked for the relative insignificance of their cause: A is not as bad as B, therefore it is better to work on B is a moral argument and not a logical one: It points to what ought to be and is rhetorical. It is equivalent to an argument of the sort "God loves men who do A better than he loves men who do B. Therefore One should do B." The problem with that sort of argument is that it may appear to an individual to be specious if it contradicts their desires or beliefs. If one assumes God exists, or that there are real moral responsibilities that must be undertaken, it is perfectly valid to prioritize them. Our above moralizer is not wrong in wanting to do A, and our syllogist is not wrong in asserting that doing B would be better.Shinola (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Bang for buck[edit]

Is this also a fallacy?

We have a budget of $X that we can use to fix problem A or fix problem B.
A is not as bad as B.
Therefore, we can best use our budget to fix B.

And how many of the "Other examples" can be recast in this bang-for-buck form? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What you describe is actually not a fallacy at all. In fact, the very suggestion that there couldn't reasonably be priorities of some things over other things falls under the balance fallacy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)