Does this qualify as the Nirvana fallacy / perfect solution fallacy?

There's two ways this fallacy could be rewritten:

1. It's fine to allow avoidable bad things since unavoidable bad things happen


2. It's fine to allow bad things since bad things happen all the time

In my opinion it's the second argument the one that carries the spirit of the original argument, and it's less incoherent, so that's the one that should be tackled.

The key is understanding that because bad things already "happen all the time" it's assumed such amount of bad things is fine. The fallacy is assuming that because some amount of bad things is fine, any amount of bad things is fine. That's a hasty generalization fallacy.

However, I've recently identified many examples of this fallacy, and I think deserves its own name, which is why I've coined it the "amount fallacy". I wrote a blog post about it, and made a separate question to see if it's indeed uncoined.

If I rephrase the statement as "why bother doing anything because it won't matter", I think it captures the meaning of the quote without suggesting anything to be done is in any sense "perfect". unless "anything is better than nothing" is being asserted.

"Anything is better than nothing" opens the whole discussion up to analysis, but has multiple sorts of possible fallacies, other than nirvana, since the generalization of "anything" does not claim "anything" [ consider it "any old thing" ] would be perfect or even acceptable, good enough or useful.

As Dr Bo said this is the Nirvana Fallacy ("we can't stop all bad things, so it's okay to allow other bad things we can stop to happen anyway.")

The focus should be on preventing as much harm, and thus bad things, as possible - never mind the fact you can't catch 'em all.

This example is pretty much the definition of the nirvana fallacy . I can see how it might not fit strictly in the definition, but the spirit of the fallacy is certainly present. We can reword this without changing the main idea and have it be a perfect match for the fallacy:

P1. Avoiding all bad things is an ideal solution.
P2. Avoiding only avoidable bad things is a reasonable solution.
C. Since we can't avoid all bad things, it is not worth avoiding any.