X is bad. But Y did worse things than X. Therefore, X is good
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
What is/are the logical fallacy/ies that constitute an argument defending a bad political candidate by pointing out the the current or previous person who holds/held that position is much worse than the candidate that is being defended? I'm thinking false dichotomy, but there must be more.
Arguments like this are also very common among die-hard supporters of a current leader who is performing really bad or doing very bad things. These die-hard supporters will point out all the mistakes committed by the previous leader and will end up concluding that the leader they support is the best choice despite that leader also committing very bad things/mistakes.
Answers
4This is a tricky one that gets into what constitutes "good." For example, if vaccine X is 50% effective (for a certain disease) and vaccine Y is 10% effective, we might say that vaccine X is "good". However, if vaccine X is 50% effective and vaccine Y is 90% effective, we might say that vaccine X is now "not very good". Both can be true and accurate as we are dealing with something that is relative.
When it comes to leaders, there is some relativity there. All leaders must make difficult decisions that will inevitably upset about half the population. Given this, the word "good" or "bad" should take into effect how the leader compares with their predecessors. Of course, there is some (practical) objectivity. If leader X rapes 5 women and leader Y rapes "only" 4, we wouldn't call leader Y "good" when referring to moral character.
In general, if the situation calls for it, I would call this a non sequitur . We use this generic fallacy in situations like this where it CAN be a fallacy based on the situation. Typically, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if person A says that leader X is good because leader Y was horrible, then they should support that claim.
A took a bribe of $10,000 and B took a bribe of $100,000 doesn't make A good and B bad
A maybe took a bribe of $10,000 that MSM won't investigate, and B won't comply with some kind of demand from MSM doesn't make A good and B bad.
I see multiple fallacies potentially in the issues of the question.
non sequitur. Put it in a Truth Table or Venn Diagram to see it clearly.
P1) X is bad.
P2) However, Y is worse.
C) X is good.
Aside from being a possible contradiction in terms (P1 and C clash with one another; one cannot be 'bad' and 'good' at the same time, unless we are equivocating from a universal to a particular judgement), the conclusion does not follow from P2 because Y being worse than X does not imply X is better than average, in other words, "good". Both of them could be bad. Thus, we have a non-sequitur.
To be fair to the proponent, though, 'good' and 'bad' are relative, so X could be good dependent on context.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course