 |
| Durham, 1997 |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Any argument has its limitations.
When accessing premises, any other option for premises comes from the 'available alternatives'. (208).
Therefore, when premises are criticized as imperfect and the alternatives are imperfect as well; those presenting alternatives as perfect, risk the fallacy of 'Unobtainable perfection'.
I am reasoning here that those presenting alternatives may not reason his/her premises are perfect, but rather are not applying a reasonable critique to these alternative views.
Based on the author's example (2008):
Nuclear power and energy should be made illegal as it is dangerous.
(Coal and hydro-electric, and oil are all dangerous too. A key question is which forms of energy production are more dangerous than others.)
In other words, it would be fallacious to rule out nuclear power and energy because it is imperfectly dangerous when this applies to all major energy sources. (2008). The status quo is imperfect and so will be alternatives. It is fallacious to claim there is a perfect solution to the status quo, at least in this present fallen realm.
I caution my politicized friends on the further left and further right that claim their side should rule and could create any type of utopia. Sinful human nature taints all political movements in this fallen realm.
Pirie points out two variants:
Claiming status quo premises do not go far enough. (209). The more drastic change may be (maybe not) better, but it too will be imperfect.
Seeking premises that are beyond a human ability to provide by those making the decisions. (210). So the impossible is suggested over the possible. The impossible but supposedly perfect suggestion (argument) is fallaciously preferred over imperfect, possible premises.
