1

I come across that kind of argument sometimes, and I would like to know if it has a registered "type of argument" or maybe "fallacy" name in the philosophical literature. The argument runs something like: "there are already more guns than people in the US, therefore it is a lost cause, there is no point trying to improve the situation with guns in the US". Please, let's not argue about guns in the US, but about that type of argument. The idea is that something is more or less hopeless, so there is no point trying to expand any effort on it. Is it just a "personal opinion" rather than a "type of argument"? Is it a "fallacy"?

  • Maybe Pessimism?.. Not that it's a type of argument, but it's a view that certainly fits this kind of argument. – Yechiam Weiss Feb 22 '18 at 0:49
  • It is a suppressed premise. Something to the effect "controlling people requires a given amount of effort for each person controlled". It is false, because in a lot of situations, people control themselves individually, so there is enough effort available to control almost all of them by simply clarifying motivation. E.g., reproduction -- when the culture clarified how it advantageous to have fewer children, our 'run-away' population growth took care of itself. Western and other high-productivity populations are now all shrinking, creating demographic puzzles in place of overcrowding. – jobermark Feb 23 '18 at 10:56
  • Perfect solution fallacy? False dilemma? False equivalence? – Veedrac Feb 23 '18 at 11:07
  • 1
    Just because there are more guns than people it doesn't necessarily follow that gun control is a lost cause. Not exactly sure what to call that fallacy, but a variant would be "This book has 100 pages. I have only 2 eyes. Therefore, there's no point in trying to read this book" – barrycarter Feb 23 '18 at 16:49
1

[Substantially edited after discussion – see comments.]

The post contains a general argument pattern, and a particular argument which tries to instantiate that pattern. Neither is formulated very carefully, so my reconstructions may not be what OP had in mind. Starting with the argument pattern, (p) is a quote from the post and (P) my reconstruction.

(p) If “something is more or less hopeless, […] there is no point trying to expand any effort on it.”

(P) If there is no hope that X will be achieved, then trying to achieve X is pointless.

Note that (p) talks about ‘more or less’ hopeless situations. While it matters just how hopeless the situation is, let’s first focus on situations that are completely hopeless. In turn, if ‘there is no hope that X can be achieved’ is read as ‘it is impossible to achieve X’, then (P) can be unpacked as follows:

(P.1) It is impossible to achieve X.
(P.2) X will not be achieved.
(P.3) There is no point in trying to achieve X.

Barring subtle questions about temporal modal logic, (P.2) follows from (P.1). Getting (P.3) from (P.2) is more difficult formally as we don’t have a formal semantics for the operator ‘it is pointless to try _’. Still if you know you won’t do x, it does seem right to infer that it is pointless to try. In fact, if you already know you won’t/can’t do x, many hold that you can’t even intend to do x. (That's one interpretation of Kavka’s toxin puzzle, I think.) Thus, if (P) is tantamount to (P.1) – (P.3), then (P) is non-fallacious, and in that sense 'valid'.
Turning to situations that are less than completely hopeless, let’s replace (P.1) with (P.1*).

(P.1*) It is unlikely that that X will be achieved.

While (P.2) no longer follows, there’s a sense in which (P.3) is supported by (P.1*): if X is unlikely enough, then the expected value of attempting to achieve X may be a loss. E.g., unless the jackpot is very large, you’d expect that buying a lottery ticket will lead to a loss of money. That may not make the purchase entirely pointless; but everything else being equal, the rational choice is not to buy the ticket.

Let’s now turn to the particular argument, with (a) being a quote and (A.1) to (A.3) being my reconstruction.

(a) “there are already more guns than people in the US, therefore it is a lost cause, there is no point trying to improve the situation with guns in the US”

(A.1) There are more guns than people.
(A.2) Thus, there is no hope that gun safety can be achieved.
(A.3) Thus, there is no point in trying to improve gun safety.

Note that (A.2) does not follow from (A.1): while (A.2) may be some kind of ‘empirical consequence’ of (A.1), we can easily imagine a situation in which (A.1) is true but (A.2) false. (I’ll leave that to the reader.) One could try replacing (A.1) with e.g. ‘There are too many guns for us to control’, but I don’t think that will help: it’s still not clear that (A.2) follows. Worse, (A.1) begs the question, and may also contain a false disambiguation: people might agree to ‘There are too many guns’, but then ‘too many’ is (illicitly) interpreted as ‘too many to control’.
Finally, there’s the step from (A.2) to (A.3). This is supposed to be an instance of (P), but I don’t think it is: while (A.2) seems to talk about achieving complete gun safety, (A.3) concerns attempts to improve gun safety. (Btw., I’m leaving open what ‘gun safety’ actually amounts to.) In other words, rather than being an instance of (P), the step from (A.2) to (A.3) is similar to the fallacy of division, illustrated by (i) and (ii):

(i) We can’t save all the drowning castaways.
(ii) Thus, we can’t (and shouldn’t try to) save any of the drowning castaways.

We could try to replace (A.2) with (A.2*), or (A.3) with (A.3*). While either would yield an instance of (P), (A.2*) is much less convincing than (A.2), and (A.3*) leaves open that gun safety can be improved - albeit not to perfection.

(A.2*) There is no hope that gun safety can be improved.
(A.3*) There is no point in trying to achieve (complete) gun safety.

Conclusion. While the OP’s argument pattern is non-fallacious (under one reconstruction), the particular argument isn’t an instance of this pattern. It can be turned into such a pattern, but it is then either not convincing or not interesting.

  • The argument is obviously not valid though. – Veedrac Feb 23 '18 at 10:58
  • @Veedrac It’s not obvious to me. I agree that the argument is unsuccessful, and also that the following is invalid: ‘There are more guns than people. Thus, we can’t solve the gun problem.’ Still, (i) to (iii) seems like a possible, and not too implausible, reconstruction of what the argument’s proponent is trying to get at. As the OP says: ‘The idea is that something is more or less hopeless, so there is no point trying to expand any effort on it.’ In turn, if a situation really is hopeless and literally cannot be fixed, then trying is pointless. – MarkOxford Feb 23 '18 at 13:59
  • Downvote: see my comment on the original question re why the argument is invalid. I think your summary mis-states the argument. Your point (i) contains a hidden premise ("too many" guns implies it's impossible to control guns), in part because "too many" doesn't really have a meaning. If you mean "there are too many guns to control; therefore it is impossible to control all guns [though it may be possible to control some]", that's just a tautology. – barrycarter Feb 23 '18 at 16:51
  • Thanks or the post and the ensuing discussion. – Frank Feb 23 '18 at 17:57
  • @barrycarter Here’s the point I was making: the inference from ‘It's hopeless’ to ‘It's pointless’ seems valid. Hence if someone accepts ‘It’s impossible to solve the gun problem [GP]’, they’d be justified in inferring: ‘Any attempt to solve the GP is pointless’. – Your point seems to be: that there are more guns than people, does not mean that it is impossible to solve the GP. I agree with this point, but it doesn’t affect my point. In fact, I explicitly said that (i) is very debatable, and that the following is invalid: ‘There are more guns than people. Thus, we can’t solve the GP.’ – MarkOxford Feb 23 '18 at 18:27
2

I think the fallacy you are looking for is the Perfect Solution Fallacy, where the arguer dismisses a proposed solution because it is not "perfect."

In your example, the arguer has dismissed the idea of gun control because "there are already too many guns--it is useless to try to control them."

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.