2P2M

The double standard fallacy - a cousin of the nirvana fallacy and of the precautionary principle fallacy - consists in criticizing one option for not showing obvious perfection, while not submitting the other option to the same criteria.

A rational approach would be "something is better than what we have if it is better than what we have". The double standard approach is "something is better than what we have if it is perfect, however crappy what we have might be".

In other words: "the current system may sure suck, but unless you present a new system that will be perfect, and shall provide free ponies for everyone, too, I'd rather stick with the current shite, thank you very much".

The usual application of the fallacy is against anarchists: "oh yeah? And how would the court system work in anarchy, eh?". Unless you can provide a perfect explanation, statism is deemed superior. Of course, a court system is not something that can be explained that easily, and the person commiting the fallacy would be most likely unable to explain to you how the current court system works - and if it does work at all, for that matter. And even if you were, say, to point to the fact that even now private international arbitration courts are operating and doing a much better work than the current FDD courts, the statist won't really care - he doesn't care about the truth, he cares about "winning" an argument.

And now I'm getting used to a new application - against vegans. As I've already mentioned, trying to apply some sort of non-agression principle in relation to all animals seems to me not a perfectly finished solution, but certainly to make a lot more sense than the dominant vague ideology.

If someone wants to criticize it, the rational approach would be, either to present a better solution than both the status quo and my proposal (for instance, a fruitarian might argue that plants should not be "killed" either and that therefore only fruits should be eaten), or, to show why the status quo makes more sense than my proposal, or indeed, if he craves perfection, to prove how the current status quo is perfect (good luck with that one). Alas, this is not the kind of argument you shall hear. Instead, you'll hear ad nauseam questions like "what about lettuce, ain't that lettuce been killed?" or "what about tomatoes, don't tomatoes suffer as well"?, asked not by fruitarians or breatharians but by your average omnivore. The stance being basically "if you can't present to me a perfect answer to why it's wrong to eat animals but ok to eat lettuce, I'll keep on eating both lettuce and animals". Of course, the omnivore would be quite unable to present even a vaguely plausible case for "why it's ok to eat animals but wrong to eat humans".

2009-02-11