For or Against?

Examining the logic of 'false dichotomy'

Often times when we are arguing we propose a ‘dichotomy’. We propose an ‘either/or’ argument. We might use the terms ‘right vs left’ or ‘my side vs your side’ or even ‘reason vs illogic’ or some other fishnet term, but the result is we divide the universe into two sides, and wish to speak of their differences. In logic terms, we propose a ‘dichotomy’. However we all too often, perhaps even usually, propose a false dichotomy.

When is a dichotomy a false dichotomy? Indeed when does something that is truly a dichotomy become a false dichotomy because of the implications of the way it is used in an argument or reporting?

The other day a political candidate came out against ‘right to work’ laws. And the reporter duly reported that another political candidate was ‘in favour’ of right to work laws. When I first read it I had the same impression as the reporter must have had when they wrote the article; that he had covered all the bases. “For” versus “against”. Indeed they had been very careful to make sure that the ‘for’ and the ‘against’ covered the very same issue: ‘right to work laws’.

But as I lay in bed that night I realised that this very careful dichotomy had left the wrong impression…

Let us start by look at *all* of the possibilities when it comes to ‘right to work’ laws. Indeed we will not even cover all of the possibilities, merely all of them along the same scale:

Situation: The current situation is that certain states and localities have certain laws entitled ‘right to work’ laws, with certain aspect to them

1) In favour of right to work laws. . One person might think that we have gotten that exactly right. That having those states and localities having those laws is just about perfect.

2) In favour of right to work laws (2). Someone else might think that while the laws are fine, there are too few states and localities with those laws.

3) In favour of right to work laws (3). Someone else might agree with (2), but think that those laws should be passed at the federal or even UN level as well.

4) Opposed to right to work laws. Someone may think that all of the current right to work laws should be abolished.

5) Opposed to right to work laws (2). Someone else may think that they are merely in too many states and/or localities.

6) Opposed to right to work laws (3). Someone else may think that they are poorly written, that those laws should cover less ground. (This person may even be in favor of (2) above!!)

7) Opposed to right to work laws (4). Someone else may believe that our current right to work laws are wrong, because they need to be stronger! That the current right to work laws give some room for unions, and this person would like unions to be illegal!

The dichotomy we talked about in the first paragraph is now seen as false first of all because the simple dichotomy does NOT cover all of the bases. However there is something even more serious, seriously misleading, in it.

Let’s simplify the above list by putting them in groups. The initial dichotomy would look something like this:

[4,5,6] vs [1] ie ‘opposed’ vs ‘favor’

But what that does is make [1], which is really a middle position, out as if it were the position on the right. What the reporter probably thought they were doing was something like this:

[4,5,6] vs [1,2,3,7]

But the words of the dichotomy actually form an impression that misses  the reality of the current debate. It leaves the impression that the debate looks like this:

[change] vs [stasis]

Whereas the debate actually looks like this:

[change] vs [stasis] vs [change]

In fact politically speaking there are actually very few people in the [stasis] camp so the real debate looks more like this:

[change in one direction] vs [change in the other direction]

Or

[radical change in one direction] vs [slow or small change in that same direction] vs [slow or small change in the other direction] vs [radical change in the other direction]

Put into our modern vague political terms it might be:

[progressive] vs [leftist] vs [moderate] vs [moderate] vs [unthinking conservative] vs [principled conservative and libertarian]

So to go way back to our discussion on right to work laws, if our reporter were to have tried to simplify the discussion, and yet get the dichotomy of the situation on the ground actually right, how would he have stated it? He would probably have needed to speak of those who were ‘against’ right to work laws, and wished to see them repealed (which he did), and have contrasted them with people who were ‘in favour’ of right to work laws, and wished to see them strengthened and applied in every jurisdiction (which he didn’t). He implied a [change] vs [stasis] discussion in an area that is actually a [change] vs [change] political debate.

This problem does not just exist in the right to work argument, or in the pro-life argument, it exists in almost all arguments. We will not only be much better arguers if we recognise this, we might find ourselves changing our own position if we fully examine all of the options.