• SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      One I can think of is false dilemma/false dichotomy (a false premise that erroneously limits what options are available, and forces us to choose between 2 options (either cause unnecessary harm and waste the full usefulness of the harm, or cause unnecessary harm and maximise its usefulness) when there is a third option to not cause the unnecessary harm in the first place.

      However that’s more general and I was looking for something more specific that refers to assuming something is necessary because it’s an unavoidable component of another thing which itself is unnecessary.

      • oneiros@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        I was nerd sniped by this post for like an hour, and “false dichotomy” was the closest I could find, lol. You could say that the argument has an unstated co-premise (“the harm is necessary”), to which you are raising an “inference objection”.

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I appreciate your thoughts! And “nerd sniped” is a great term 😂 I agree, I think there may not be a specific name for this fallacy (though it could be described as somewhat of a false requirement or false necessity fallacy), nor is it widely recognised in logic literature (as is often the case; some might call it a “made-up fallacy” but indeed a verifiable one), but it probably falls under the more general fallacies of “false dilemma/false dichotomy”, as well as “fallacy of composition”:

          “Fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what’s true for part of something must also be true for the whole or that if one thing is a necessary component of another thing, both must be necessary, even if it’s not the case. In essence, it assumes that the properties of the parts apply to the whole.”

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not a false dichotomy under that arrangement.

        But I think you’re just treating this as a soapbox for vegan BS now.

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          How is it not a false dichotomy? It erroneously forces us to choose between 2 options, when in actual fact there is a third option.

          And, I’m really not. I was asked for an example/elaboration of how the fallacy might be used, and that was my best example. However it can likely apply to other situations too. If you recall, I initially just asked for what the fallacy might be called, without specifying any examples until I was asked for one.

          • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Ok I have another example.

            Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it’s a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.