(also known as The Gladiator’s Two Options)
An Introduction to the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy
For philosophers from Aristotle to the present, awareness and study of logical fallacies have been a cornerstone of understanding mental errors. In Sophistici Elenchi, Aristotle listed thirteen fallacies in two categories: “fallacies in diction” (concerning language) and “fallacies in logic” (concerning argument). Since then, in the logical and philosophical tradition, various lists and classifications have appeared, and with each era, the number of recognised fallacies has increased.
Today, if we include all formal and informal fallacies and their sub-branches, the number can exceed two hundred—a figure that shows the complexity and variety of errors in reasoning across logic, language, and daily life. These classifications and labels are mainly for the convenience of study and reference; otherwise, in practice, a single fallacy may fall under several headings. Moreover, those who use fallacies often combine several to make their reasoning more persuasive.
With the growth of sciences, media criticism, and applied logic, modern scholars have defined and recorded new fallacies that were absent from classical sources. True Philosophy is also a newcomer that opens new horizons of fallacious reasoning. One such case is the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy (also known as the Gladiator’s Two Options), which has no independent place in academic philosophy. I initially attempted, in a brief note, to incorporate the metaphor of the “Gladiator’s Two Options” within the Fallacy of False Alternatives. Still, that shoe proved too tight a fit for this concept. Experience showed that the imposed choice between two evils goes beyond a false dichotomy, and this led me to formulate it independently. The following text is the result.
Bahman Azadfar
5 September 2025
The Imposed Dilemma Fallacy (The Gladiator’s Two Options)
An undesirable situation in which one must inevitably choose between “two evils.” At times, both evils are imposed simultaneously.
Definition:
The Imposed Dilemma Fallacy occurs when an individual or society is placed in a situation where they must necessarily choose at least one of “two evils,” without a good option being present at that moment.[1] In reality, the person or society is compelled to choose between two “either… or …” options, both of which are evil, much like the situation of a gladiator in ancient Rome.
In the Roman Empire, a captive gladiator faced two choices: if he refused to enter the arena, he was killed at once; if he entered, he had a fifty-fifty chance of survival. To live, he had to kill his opponent. He had no genuine freedom; he was forced to choose between the two evils of “killing” or “being killed.” Of course, sometimes he killed his opponent but later died from wounds sustained during the fight.
The Imposed Dilemma Fallacy results from ignoring and violating human rights. It will remain until the education required by paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is fully understood and implemented.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- Individual or society A is captive.
- A must choose between “evil P” or “evil T.”
Captivity is what generates the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy. This captivity may be mental, physical, or both. Suppose an individual or society wishes to avoid a situation where they must choose between two evils. In that case, they must avoid becoming captive long before the moment of forced choice. If already captive, they must strive for freedom.
The captivity that lies at the root of the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy is the deficiency in the functioning of human homeostasis, which leaves our personality incomplete.[2] As long as two-thirds of homeostasis does not function correctly, we possess an incomplete personality. In such a circumstance, because of our ignorance, we compel either ourselves or others to choose at least one of two evils.
Liberation will only be possible when homeostasis functions fully and correctly, allowing us to develop a complete personality.
Wise education is the key to freedom from this captivity of ignorance and to achieving a complete personality. It is with this understanding that paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly affirms:
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Until the spirit and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are understood and carried out, our mental and physical captivity will continue, and we will be placed in situations where we must choose between two evils, without a good option or even an escape.
Examples from Real Life:
1. In politics and international relations:
a) In February 2022, Russia launched a military attack on Ukraine. Finland and Sweden, two European countries, were neutral and not members of NATO. The attack created a sense of insecurity among their peoples and governments. Public opinion, previously opposed to NATO membership, shifted in favour, and both countries joined the alliance.
Here, it should be noted that this whole sequence—the Russian attack and the accession of Finland and Sweden—was the result of a nearer and a more distant process.
- Nearer process : NATO’s expansion eastwards led Russia to feel threatened and resort to war. Then Finland and Sweden, not members of the alliance, panicked and joined NATO for protection. These nations, like all other nations under normal circumstances, are peace-loving and have no desire for war, but found themselves in the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy—or “the Gladiator’s Two Options”—forced to choose between “fighting alone” or “fighting collectively.”
They entered NATO just as a gladiator once entered the arena.
- More distant process : Humanity’s hope after the Second World War was that the founding of the United Nations and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would bring lasting peace. But because the provisions of the UDHR have neither been understood nor implemented, wars have continued, for there is no deep understanding of peace. How can peace be achieved if we do not know what it is or how to reach it?
The creation of the United Nations, the adoption of a charter committed to establishing and maintaining international peace and security, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even the construction of a 39-storey headquarters in New York cannot bring peace or prevent human rights violations. Unless we understand what peace is and how to achieve it, all of this will remain mere decoration, and war and human rights violations will continue.[3]
b) Green parties have consistently opposed fossil fuels and pledged to protect the environment. The German Green Party entered a coalition government in 2021. In 2022, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Europe’s energy crisis intensified. The German government agreed with the energy company RWE to demolish the village of Lützerath to expand a lignite mine.
Here, it should be noted that the German Green Party accepted this as a “lesser evil”: either destroy a village or import fossil fuels on a large scale. But this was still an Imposed Dilemma: choose between evils with no good path. Like Finland and Sweden, they faced the choice of “fight alone” or “fight together.”
Suppose the German Green Party wished to remain faithful to its promises. In that case, it should have acted decades earlier, before reaching the moment of forced choice, to establish global peace so that the war in Ukraine would not occur, and to reform the consumption patterns imposed by capitalism.
Just as avoiding war is only possible through understanding and implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, preventing the sacrifice of the environment is only possible through prevention and wise, timely action.
c)To confront the unjust order prevailing in the world, two imposed options are placed before justice-seeking individuals or groups:
Either they must enter legal political activity (like the German Green Party), or they must turn to violence and terrorism (like the Baader–Meinhof Group) and be eliminated.
Here, it should be noted that between the two inevitable evils—“terrorist actions” and “entering the arena of legal politics,” that is, Realpolitik—one group of young justice-seekers in Germany chose the worse evil and became the Baader–Meinhof Group (later known as the Red Army Faction, RAF), while the other group chose the lesser evil and became the German Green Party. A third way existed neither at that time (the years following the 1968 student movement) nor does it exist now.
Neither of the two groups was able to contribute to reducing injustice in the world, because with the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy that Realpolitik and its economic arm, capitalism, place before us, no path to justice can be opened. The concept of justice, like the concept of peace, requires a deep understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such profound comprehension is impossible without True Philosophy.
d) At the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations spoke with hope for the future. But at the 75th anniversary of the same declaration, another Secretary-General of the United Nations delivered deeply discouraging words.
Here, it should be noted that this change of tone shows lost opportunities. From 1998 to 2023, inaction and superficial measures prevailed, trapping us in two evils: doing nothing or empty displays. Without serious action now, the centenary (2048) will confront us with worse evils: either a world of crisis and injustice, or the collapse of the legal-human order.
e) Journalists in many countries face two options: remain silent and protect their lives, or tell the truth and risk prison, torture, or assassination.
Here, it should be noted that this situation is an example of the Imposed Dilemma: choose one of two evils, with no third way available. In reality, the absence of international legal support has forced journalists, like gladiators, to choose between two evils: either silence or death.
If we want journalists in the future not to be forced to choose between two evils, we must create a third way now.
The international community must place journalists under effective legal protection. This means creating an international court with its own police force, so that, first, the suppression of journalists becomes costly for human rights violators, and then impossible.
In such a legal system, ‘the arrest of any journalist, anywhere in the world and for any reason, must be reported to the international court and investigated by an independent prosecutor. The international court must ensure that accusing and arresting a journalist is not a conspiracy to silence their voice or take revenge on them.’
Only with such legal mechanisms, alongside other reforms derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can journalists be freed from the captivity of this imposed dilemma in the future and granted the freedom to speak the truth without fear.
2. In health and well-being:
a) Daniel had had diabetes for years but ignored his doctor’s advice. Eventually, high blood sugar and a severe infection forced him to face two evils: either lose his leg or lose his life. He was compelled to choose amputation.
Here, it should be noted that the infection reaching Daniel’s leg bone was the result of years of carelessness and inattention to treatment, ultimately placing him before the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy. Daniel was forced to choose between his leg or his life. If he wished never to face such a dilemma, he should have adhered to a strict diet years earlier, taken his medications on time, and heeded his doctors’ advice.
b) Sara ignored hypertension. Kidney failure forced her to choose between a transplant and death.
Here, it should be noted that this was likewise the result of neglect. An earlier lifestyle change would have avoided it.
3. In education:
a) For years, investment in digital education infrastructure and teacher training was neglected. When COVID-19 broke out, schools were forced to choose between two evils: either a complete closure of classes or unsafe in-person teaching.
Here, it should be noted that this situation is an example of the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy: the school was trapped between two evils, with no third or good option available. Yet the roots of this dilemma lay in the past, when digital education should have been strengthened and teachers should have been trained in the necessary skills. Neglecting that investment, just like neglecting one’s health before illness, ultimately drove the school into a situation where it had to choose between ‘educational stagnation’ and ‘risk to the health of students and teachers.
b) Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the UDHR obliges education to lead to the full development of the human personality. UN member states have adopted this obligation as national law, but in practice, it is not implemented. This violation creates an exceptional dual evil, forcing humanity to accept both evils together: either the continuation of a defective educational system or the persistence of multiple crises, including war.
Here, it should be noted that educational reform is the “mother of other reforms”; for that reason, without the full development of the human personality, neither justice nor lasting peace can be established.
Since 1948, the year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ adoption, all UN member states have been ensnared in these two evils, without the third way—complete education—placed before them. Without True Philosophy and urgent investment in training teachers who can impart philosophy, critical thinking, and respect for human rights to lay the real foundation for peace, the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy will persist in the future, and the acceptance of both evils will continue.
4. In economics:
a) For years, structural reforms in the financial system were postponed. Eventually, the government was caught between two evils: either reckless money-printing to cover expenses or imposing economic austerity on the people.
Here, it should be noted that this situation is a clear example of the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy. Long neglect of fundamental reforms in the financial and banking systems brought the government to a point where it was forced to choose between ‘runaway inflation from printing money’ and ‘poverty and pressure caused by austerity.’ If structural reforms had been carried out at the right time, such a dangerous dichotomy would never have arisen. A third way—gradual reconstruction of the financial system with transparency and justice—can only be realised when political will and economic rationality replace temporary and imposed solutions.
b) For decades, tax evasion by the wealthy and large corporations was ignored. The government was forced to choose between two evils: either increasing taxes on the middle and lower classes or escalating public debt to the point of crisis.
Here, it should be noted that this imposed dilemma is the product of structural injustice in the tax system. The tax evasion of the wealthy and major corporations drove the government to the point where, to cover the budget deficit, it had to choose between ‘greater pressure on the middle and lower classes through higher taxes’ or ‘sinking into public debt, which in turn leads to deeper social and economic crises.’ If tax justice had been established from the outset and all citizens and companies had paid taxes according to their ability, such an unjust dichotomy would never have arisen. A third way is possible only through genuine tax reform and the ending of exemptions and corruption.
5. In everyday life:
a) Linda neglected regular sleep and diet for years and did nothing about them. Now she is caught between two evils: either take strong pills and endure their side effects, or suffer from chronic insomnia and fatigue.
Here, it should be noted that Linda’s imposed dilemma is the direct result of her long-term disregard for a healthy lifestyle. The choice between “dependence on medication with side effects” and “enduring insomnia and fatigue” is, in fact, the outcome of a past in which prevention and habit reform were ignored. If she had acted years earlier to maintain regular sleep and proper nutrition, she would never have faced such a forced choice between two evils.
b) Simon was forced to choose between two evils because of his carelessness in maintenance and his long delays in repairing the car: paying a heavy cost for significant repairs or buying a new vehicle on instalments with long-term debt.
Here, it should be noted that Simon’s imposed dilemma is a result of his past negligence. His neglect of regular maintenance and disregard for minor repairs brought him to the point where he had to choose between “bearing the heavy financial burden of repair” or “long-term debt for a new car.” If Simon had previously taken care of his vehicle and attended to the necessary minor repairs, he would never have been forced into this costly choice.
c) Helen neglected her daily dental care for years and avoided going to the dentist for annual check-ups. Eventually, she faced two evils: either endure severe and unbearable tooth pain or pay a very high cost for treatment, leading to the extraction and loss of several teeth.
Here, it should be noted that Helen’s imposed dilemma is the direct result of years of neglecting daily care and regular dental check-ups. The choice between “enduring severe and unbearable pain” and “paying a heavy cost and losing several teeth” is the outcome of past negligence. If she had acted years earlier by maintaining daily oral hygiene and visiting the dentist regularly, she would not have been placed in such a forced situation.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- It perpetuates evil and makes choosing between evils unavoidable.
- It produces despair and submission to the rule of evil.
How to recognise and respond?
The Imposed Dilemma Fallacy is the final result of mental or physical captivity.
To avoid reaching a forced choice, one must not accept captivity. If captive, one must be prepared for the two evils.
A gladiator on the verge of entering the arena was confronted with the consequences of his captivity. He had either been enslaved by force or born to enslaved parents. In either case, he was a slave, held captive by an unwise system that placed him face to face with two evils: ‘kill or be killed.’
In antiquity, most slaves endured both mental and physical captivity. But only a few, like Spartacus, whose captivity was only physical, could rebel, because his mind had not been enslaved. Thus, he was able to rise to gain his freedom.
Today, captivity is primarily mental. Every human is born into mental slavery because two-thirds of their homeostasis does not function properly. This deficiency is the invisible chain that keeps the mind in captivity. The difference between invisible and visible captivity is that no chains or enclosing prison walls can be seen—yet they all exist, only unseen.
This invisibility makes a person believe they are free, but the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy compels them to stand exactly where a gladiator once stood, faced with two evils and forced to choose one. The tragic aspect of the matter is that even when in that situation, one does not understand the cause of the compulsion to choose between two evils, because ignorance is the very invisible chain that keeps them in captivity.
Naturally, as long as that invisible chain holds the mind captive, the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy will impose itself upon human life. To break the invisible chains, we must first make them visible, discern their nature, and discover with what they can be cut. This raises the question: how can the chain be made visible?”
The correct answer is this: ask yourself about the concepts in the UDHR and see whether you truly understand their meaning. For example, in the first paragraph of the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the following six concepts are included:
- Dignity
- Rights
- Human Family
- Freedom
- Justice
- Peace
If your mind is not captive—that is, if homeostasis functions fully and correctly—you will understand these concepts without any difficulty and see the relationship between them. But it is unlikely that you could do so without the education demanded by Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The beginning of liberation from the invisible chain of mental slavery is to acknowledge the existence of the chain itself. Confronting these six concepts and striving to understand them reveals the chain of ignorance, making what was invisible to you visible, so that you may cut the links of ignorance and free your mind from captivity.
If you remain silent before these concepts or shrug your shoulders and say, ‘So what?’ the invisible chain will remain, and your mind will undoubtedly stay captive to ignorance. Sooner or later, you will have to pay the price of this indifference by facing the choice of one of the two evils—or, if unlucky, both. But suppose you admit your ignorance in relation to the six concepts mentioned above. In that case, you will recognise the importance of the wise education recommended in Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Wise education is the saw that cuts the chain. To begin, watch these 18 educational videos HERE:
Conclusion:
The Imposed Dilemma Fallacy is one of the most dangerous mental errors, for it places an individual or society in a situation where they are compelled to accept one of two evils, with no good option available. At times, circumstances even develop in such a way that both evils impose themselves simultaneously upon the individual or society.
The roots of this dilemma always lie in the past: failing to see the origins of problems and crises, remaining inactive in the face of warnings, neglecting wise education, trampling on human rights, and depending on corrupt structures. It is precisely these neglects that bring us to a moment when only two evils lie before us. For this reason, the imposed dilemma is not a sudden occurrence, but the result of a chain of missed opportunities.
The consequence is despair and submission to the rule of evil. When no good path lies ahead, people acquiesce to the continuation of existing unjust conditions. Such acceptance ensures evil’s persistence. This continuation manifests in politics as successive wars, in economics as economic crises (poverty, severe wealth inequality, debt, and unemployment), in health as chronic mental illnesses (depression) and epidemics like COVID-19, and in education as the perpetuation of ignorance of morality and law-breaking.
But there is a third way: to make the invisible chains of mental captivity visible. This can only be achieved by questioning and understanding the foundational concepts of the UDHR—dignity, freedom, justice, peace, and so on. The implementation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, which commits education to the full development of the human personality, is the key. Without True Philosophy and Wise Education, people will always remain captive to circumstances, but with them, the chain of ignorance can be cut and humanity freed from the cycle of choosing between evils.
[1] The difference between the Imposed Dilemma Fallacy and the False Dilemma is that in a False Dilemma, the fallacy-monger(fallacy-maker) —such as a speaker or politician— deliberately conceals other options. In contrast, in an Imposed Dilemma, circumstances place the person or society in captivity so that, at the moment of choice, only two evils are available and no third or good option exists.
[2] For a more precise explanation of homeostasis, see Video 3, Deformation in the Human Mind, from the series of 18 educational videos on YouTube. This also encourages you to explore the rest of the series.
[3] To say that peace means “the absence of war,” and war “the absence of peace,” is to commit a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.