False Dilemma
Jennifer Culver
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
George W. Bush
According to Lunsford, Ruskiewicz, and Walters (2015), a false dilemma (FD) tends to “reduce a complicated issue to excessively simple terms” or, when intentionally created, tends to “obscure legitimate alternatives” (74).
President Bush’s quotation above illustrates the FD by metaphorically drawing a line in the sand and telling all other nations that any lack of support would be perceived as an endorsement of terrorist activity. In reality, how nations respond to an attack on another nation involves more complexity, and certainly neutrality is a third option, but Bush’s statement reduces their options to only two: with us or against us.FD reflects incorrect thinking because it presents a problem or issue as having only two possible solutions when in fact there are more. For example, when (then-Governor) Arnold Schwarzenegger said in 2005, “If we here in this chamber do not work together to reform the government, the people will rise up and reform it themselves. And, you know something, I will join them. And I will fight with them,” he posited an FD to gain support for his own proposed actions (Broder 2005). Because he wanted to overhaul redistricting in his state, he tried to make the public believe that prohibiting that redistricting would create civil unrest; the citizens would be ready to rise up and take action to make the government work more efficiently.
Liam Dempsey (2013) noted that shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report often employed FD in order to highlight the “theatrics” that are found in political events (such as national conventions) or the use of FD by politicians (170). As Steven Colbert used to ask many of his guests: “George W. Bush: great president or the greatest president?” This demonstrates nicely why FDs are fallacies.
When his guests would refuse to answer, he’d just say “I’ll put you down for great.” Clearly, his guests didn’t agree.Politics aside, an FD exists anytime an extreme dichotomy of choices appears as the only possible answers. To be clear, not every dilemma is an FD. If there really are only two options, presenting only those two options is not fallacious. “You can have soup or salad with your entree.” But if there are more than two options, presenting only two of them commits the FD fallacy.
For example, a person may believe that going to heaven and going to hell are the only possible things that could happen to a person after death. A coach may believe that any competition boils down only to winners and losers. People may compartmentalize everyone who is not their friend as an enemy. In each of these situations, an individual only sees two possibilities when there are more. It’s a kind of black-and-white thinking that creates an FD for anyone who does not easily gravitate to either category.
Finally, advertisers also create an FD when creating a situation with only two outcomes and the only correct or positive outcome leads to their brand. Paper towel and toilet paper commercials, for example, usually only compare the favored brand with one other brand, a brand not as absorbent. The audience views the impressive distance between the two brands, but when that same audience goes to purchase toilet paper or paper towels, a myriad of possibilities exist that the commercial does not accurately convey.
References
Broder, John. 2005. “Schwarzenegger Proposes Overhaul of Redistricting.” New York Times, January 6. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/us/schwarzenegger- proposes-overhaul-of-redistricting.html (accessed October 3, 2017).
Dempsey, Liam. 2013. “The Daily Show’s Expose of Political Rhetoric.” In The Ultimate Daily Show and Philosophy: More Moments of Zen, More Indecision Theory, edited by Jason Holt and William Irwin. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 167-180.
Lunsford, Andrea A., John J. Ruskiewicz, and Keith Walters. 2015. Everything’s an Argument with Readings. New York, NY: Bedford Books/St. Martin’s Press.