I haven't found this fallacy discussed anywhere. It might be considered as in instance of “false dilemma” or “Black-or-White”, but it seems to be worth discussing in its own right. It can come up in various contexts - in politics, ethics, or discussing the merits of technical solutions to problems.
The fallacy looks simply like this:
X is bad
Therefore we should eliminate X.
There are also hypothetical versions — “X would be bad, we must absolutely ensure it does not happen”.
The logical appeal of this is obvious. The flaw is also not hard to see - it is simply the law of unintended consequences. But I've seen lots of instances of this fallacy in use.
I'll start with a hopefully fairly uncontentious example from computer programming (skip three paragraphs if you are not a programmer).
We know that duplication in code is bad (Don't Repeat Yourself, Once and Only Once etc.). So we conclude that we must eliminate duplication.
In reality I just need to reduce duplication within the bounds of what is reasonable. The remaining duplication that I cannot eliminate can often be handled using simpler techniques that don't come at such great cost (e.g. a comment left in each place where a piece of information is duplicated about the existence of the other places — this is the technique I use if I have the same constant needed by code written in multiple languages).
However, the problem of the elimination fallacy doesn't lie so much is its initial logical appeal, which we can reason ourselves out of, but in its rhetorical power. Use of the elimination fallacy makes for a massively better sound bite than a more balanced expression. For example:
“Make poverty history!”
“Let's tackle unnecessary poverty and try to massively reduce it, while of course making sure that we don't significantly damage other things that also really matter, such as personal freedom and the ability of people to make decisions for themselves in ways that actually affect their destiny.”
Sometimes the rhetoric is just that, and should be interpreted as such. “Make poverty history” is not in fact a call to eliminate poverty whatever the unintended consequences (for example — the elimination of human poverty could be achieved by exterminating the human race, or possibly by a globally enforced extreme form of socialism, but neither are what we mean). It is a rallying cry, a call to massively reduce our tolerance of hugely unnecessary poverty and injustice — and one I agree with. Speaking in absolutes to communicate a relative truth has a long and honoured tradition 2.
Similarly, at the time of writing, there is the “Never Again” campaign that wants to see some action on gun control laws. The supporters are not actually suggesting any and every means to stop this from happening ever again. Nor are they suggesting a significant loss to anything really important 3.
However, the danger comes when we start with a great rallying cry, and then actually pursue it in the absolute form we stated it, rather than with the nuance it actually needs. You see the same slogans used by every extremist group – for example, “Never again” in response to an immigrant crime, meaning we need to keep “them” out of “our” country for good.
A proportional response can be so much harder to defend, as well. A number of years ago in the UK there was a mountain climbing accident involving children. Such things are rare. Obviously we want to avoid them where possible, but the resulting legislation made it harder and more expensive to run summer camps that do outdoor activities in the UK (I was involved with one of these camps), and kids from poorer backgrounds especially could no longer afford those kinds of holidays. The unintended consequence is that children spend more of their summers in cities, where they are actually much more likely to get hit by a car or end up bored and doing drugs.
However, when faced with a campaign to tighten laws on outdoor activities, led by well-meaning and mourning parents, it is very difficult to say “Actually, no, we don't want to eliminate the possibility of children falling off mountains” (because to do so we'd have to either eliminate mountains, or introduce draconian laws that stop people from ever climbing them). There are in fact many really bad things that we shouldn't attempt to completely eliminate — slander, poverty, theft, murder, adultery, disease, the list is endless. But not wanting to eliminate these things seems pretty indefensible.
All of this leaves us with some big questions:
If we express ourselves in absolutes, how do we avoid being called extremist and being misrepresented, or being lumped with people who use the same slogans for genuine extremism? Or do we just say ”haters gonna hate” and risk misrepresentation?
If we express ourselves with nuance, how do we retain rhetorical punch?
How do we avoid being taken in by our own rhetoric and taking things too far?
Finally, if we are conscious of the elimination fallacy, how do we avoid using it as an excuse for not going far enough or defeatism?
For example, Jesus said “Do not work for food that spoils but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.” He certainly didn't mean that working for money and food is now banned— rather, he is stressing the relative importance of gaining eternal life compared to mere physical life. There are plenty of other instances of this kind of overstatement in his teachings and in Old Testament Hebrew literature.
(Trying to avoid getting derailed from my blog post, which was never meant to be about guns but then "Never Again" started getting used recently, after I started writing this post. At least I managed to put this in a foot note...)
If you believe that the pleasure you get from being allowed to own a gun and fire it, and do so without any checks or required training etc., is so important a thing that it outweighs the huge danger that poor gun control poses to society, please consider that in the UK and most of Europe, we do not have the gun owning culture in the US, and yet we manage to live fulfilled lives, somehow. We are not pining to enjoy the “land of the free” [muffled scoffing sounds].
If you believe you stand to lose personal safety as a result of gun control, while it's impossible to make perfect predictions, that seems extremely unlikely. You may lose the feeling of safety, but almost certainly you will gain massively in reality. Not immediately, certainly, it will take time, even generations as attitudes and culture changes, and as grandfather rights fade out, but that is all the more reason to start the change as soon as possible. By delaying or opposing you are not only endangering the current generation, but perpetuating and further entrenching a culture that will take even greater effort to remove, and you will have the blood of future generations on your hands.
Compare the UK and the US. The US per-capita gun homicide rate is nearly 60 times what it is in the UK. However, if we ignore that, the per-capita gun homicides and unintentional gun deaths in the UK combined (0.06 and 0.00 per 100,000) are only 1/3 the death rate for unintentional gun deaths alone in the US (0.18 per 100,000) (source). That is, if you got rid of all the people in the US who are deliberately doing bad things to other people with guns, but left the UK as it is, you'd still be 3 times less likely to get shot dead in the UK than in the US. It's rather difficult to believe that the US having 30 times as many guns per capita as the UK and weak gun control laws has nothing to do with this.
(And no, the UK doesn't make up for it with knife homicides instead, even in London)
The problem is not evil, it's guns. 4.
Please note the deliberate use of overstatement.