This fallacy happens when a person or society is forced to choose between two or more bad or false options. In contrast, real and better options exist but are deliberately hidden or removed.
Definition:
The Fallacy of False Alternatives is a dangerous logical flaw that uses “either… or…” statements. The speaker presents a few choices, but all of them are wrong, harmful, or misleading. The person thinks they are choosing freely, but in truth, there is no right choice.
The difference from the False Dilemma Fallacy is this:
In a false dilemma, the problem lies in the number of options.
Example: “Either drink tea or coffee; you have nothing else” — while water or juice could also exist.
In false alternatives, the problem lies in the nature of the options themselves, which are inherently harmful.
Example: “Either drink this spoiled coffee or that mouldy tea!” — while no healthy drink is available at that moment, although it could exist elsewhere.
There is also a related fallacy that exacerbates the situation, known as the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy, or “the gladiator’s two options” metaphor.
In the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy, a person or society is forced to choose between two evils, with no third option existing either within the structure or outside it.
Example: “journalists in many countries face two options: remain silent and protect their lives, or tell the truth and risk prison, torture, or assassination.”
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- Either A or B.
- Choose one.
(Both A and B are wrong or harmful, and the real choice has been removed.)
Examples from real life:
1. Politics and international relations:
a) “Either we must go to war and occupy this country, or we must kneel before terrorism.”
Here, it should be noted that real options such as diplomacy, negotiation, or economic pressure are missing, and people are pushed to pick between two bad choices.
b) “Either the country must join this military alliance to guarantee peace, or it must accept war.”
Here, it should be noted that true peace does not come from military alliances but from understanding and applying both the spirit and the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2. Health:
“Either buy this expensive medicine and cure your illness, or suffer forever.”
Here, it should be noted that this ignores other solutions like alternative treatments, lifestyle changes, or cheaper medicines.
3. Advertising and public relations:
a) Shampoo ad: “Either your hair stays dry and dull, or you must buy this shampoo.”
Here, it should be noted that other options such as good nutrition, other shampoos, or natural treatments are ignored.
b) Fast-food ad: “Either waste your time cooking at home, or eat this ready-made food now.”
Here, it should be noted that quick and simple home cooking is deliberately excluded.
c) Company PR: “Either agree to lower staff wages, or the company will go bankrupt.”
Here, it should be noted that options like better management or cutting waste are ignored.
d) Cigarette ads in the 20th century (Edward Bernays): “As a woman, either obey society and accept the taboo of not smoking, or prove your freedom by smoking everywhere as a torch of liberty.”
Here, it should be noted that real freedom (education, economic independence, equal rights) was hidden, and women were forced between two false options: “obeying a taboo” or “smoking.”
4. Economics and the workplace:
a) Buying a house: “Either take this high-interest loan, or stay a tenant forever.”
Here, it should be noted that low-interest loans, shared buying, or saving slowly could exist but are ignored.
b) Working in a toxic job: “Either accept long hours and harsh conditions, or you will never find work.”
Here, it should be noted that other jobs or the chance to protest and change conditions are removed.
c) Business choice: “Either lower the quality to cut prices, or go bankrupt.”
Here, it should be noted that innovation or better marketing are alternatives.
d) Union relations: “Either dissolve the trade union, or the factory will close.”
Here, it should be noted that negotiation, labour law reform, or compromise are set aside.
5. Education:
a) “Either study medicine to be useful, or you will be worthless in the future.”
Here, it should be noted that success and value can come through many paths, not only one field.
b) “Either study philosophy at university to understand justice, or you will never know justice.”
Here, it should be noted that academic philosophy does not give a clear meaning of justice. Another kind of philosophy — ‘True Philosophy,’ developed outside academic institutions — can provide meaning, but this is hidden in the fallacy.
c) “Either accept this one teaching method, or no learning is possible.”
Here, it should be noted that many methods of teaching exist and can be effective.
d) “Either get top grades to succeed, or your future is closed.”
Here, it should be noted that life success depends on skills, creativity, and real experience as well as grades.
6. Personal relationships:
a) “Either you are always right, or I am always wrong.”
Here, it should be noted that truth can be shared: both may be partly right, or both may be wrong.
b) “Either spend all your time with me, or our friendship is worthless.”
Here, it should be noted that friendships can be flexible; true friendship does not require extremes.
c) “Either tell me all your secrets, or you do not trust me.”
Here, it should be noted that trust grows slowly and can exist in degrees; not sharing everything is not always distrust.
d) “Either always agree with me, or you are against me.”
Here, it should be noted that disagreement is natural and can lead to growth and deeper understanding.
e) “Either answer my message at once, or I do not matter to you.”
Here, it should be noted that many reasons (work, tiredness, personal life) can delay a reply and are not proof of indifference.
7. Everyday life:
a) “Either work hard every day, or you will stay poor forever.”
Here, it should be noted that wealth depends not only on hard work but also on skills, creativity, opportunities, and social justice.
b) “Either buy a car, or you will never be independent in travel.”
Here, it should be noted that public transport, cycling, and sharing services also give independence.
c) “Either keep shopping to be happy, or you will always be sad.”
Here, it should be noted that happiness comes more from healthy relations, creativity, and meaning in life than from empty consumerism that also destroys the environment.
d) “Either spend all your time on social media, or you will fall behind.”
Here, it should be noted that balanced use is enough, and the real world offers richer chances for growth and connection.
e) “Either stay home always to save money, or you will never have a future.”
Here, it should be noted that the future is built not only by saving but also by deeper and more profound learning and by joining in the making of a fair society.
Why this fallacy is dangerous:
- It traps the mind in a cage: a person or nation is forced to choose the “least bad” among evils.
- It is a powerful tool in politics and advertising: it drives people towards pre-set choices.
- It weakens human rights: it forces people to accept choices that risk or destroy their freedom and well-being.
- It weakens critical thinking: people learn to accept imposed options instead of looking for real ones.
How to recognise and respond?
When you see “either… or…” choices, ask:
– “Are these bad or dangerous options the only real ones?”
– “Where is the true hidden option, and who gains by hiding it?”
A suitable response might be: “You are giving me false alternatives. None of these options is right or acceptable. I reject your framework and will search for better choices.”
Conclusion:
The fallacy of false alternatives shows that sometimes the choice itself is a trap. Our task is to break the false frame and identify genuine options that uphold the core values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Knowing this fallacy helps us keep our freedom and dignity safe from fake options.