Fallacy

37 Nothing but Objections
In the complexity of affairs there are few designs or proposals so well considered that objections cannot be raised to them. A man must often choose the lesser of evils and try, if he will accomplish anything at all, to dedicate himself to a course of action in spite of grave misgivings.
Why choose the lesser evil? Why not, in such cases, reject all proposals? The answer is that sometimes there is no escape from choice; to fail to decide is to "decide by default." Suppose there is a bond issue before the electorate and today is polling day. You know that the conditions the bond issue is designed to remedy are, as you say, intolerable, but you also know that many objections are raised against the proposed remedy. Now in your community a bond issue must receive two-thirds of the votes to pass. It is clear that if you cannot make up your mind to vote for the issue, though you do not vote against it (leaving the spaces blank), you in effect help defeat it.
In the homely case it is clear that often a man who cannot make up his mind ends in making a "decision by default." People say, "Peter could not decide to accept the invitation until it was too late"; in effect he decided not to accept it. "When the inflation began, Peter could not make up his mind whether to invest in stock or in a piece of real estate; his money is still in the bank." The inability to decide between two becomes a decision against both. We have already remarked on the donkey that starved to death when placed at an equal distance between two bundles of hay (p. 49).
Sometimes an opponent to a measure will take account of this incapacity of some persons to decide for a plan of action when they have misgivings, and will exploit it by raising continuous objections until the defeat of the proposal is assured. There is here the fallacy of objections. One can find objections to almost any plan -- the fallacy is failing to weigh in the balance the objections to the alternatives. It is apparent that this is a fallacy of the audience; it is they who must decide and who fail to weigh the counter-objections.
This fallacy was first analyzed at length by Richard Whately, well over a hundred years ago, who summarized, "There never was, or will be, any plan executed or proposed, against which strong and even unanswerable objections may not be urged; so that unless the opposite objections be set up in the balance on the other side, we can never advance a step."
EXAMPLE COMMENT
In late 1953 the Administration proposed a "new look" for defense, based on the potentiality of "massive retaliation." Many persons objected that concentration on the building of a long-range airforce might leave the nation unable to resist "new Koreas." Without going into the merits of this controversy, we can easily see that no matter what course the Administration might have taken, very serious objections could be raised to it. Yet to allow things to go on in the old way of "balanced forces" and enormous expenditures would itself constitute a decision of the gravest sort. There is no suggestion in this example that all those who opposed the concept of massive retaliation were exploiting people's propensity to commit the fallacy of objections. But the public discussion was marred by the fact that numbers of speakers and writers failed to weigh the admitted difficulties of this concept against those of the practical alternatives.
Swain Peter, courting Hortense, delayed and delayed the decision to propose marriage. He saw all sorts of difficulties -- too little money, doubts about his compatibility with Hortense, fears of having his suit rejected -- and found himself simply unable to propose. Hortense waited with patience for a long time. She's now married to Paul. Peter is just as much a bachelor today as if he had decided definitely not to propose.

EXAMPLE	COMMENT
In late 1953 the Administration proposed a "new look" for defense, based on the potentiality of "massive retaliation." Many persons objected that concentration on the building of a long-range airforce might leave the nation unable to resist "new Koreas."	Without going into the merits of this controversy, we can easily see that no matter what course the Administration might have taken, very serious objections could be raised to it. Yet to allow things to go on in the old way of "balanced forces" and enormous expenditures would itself constitute a decision of the gravest sort. There is no suggestion in this example that all those who opposed the concept of massive retaliation were exploiting people's propensity to commit the fallacy of objections. But the public discussion was marred by the fact that numbers of speakers and writers failed to weigh the admitted difficulties of this concept against those of the practical alternatives.
Swain Peter, courting Hortense, delayed and delayed the decision to propose marriage. He saw all sorts of difficulties -- too little money, doubts about his compatibility with Hortense, fears of having his suit rejected -- and found himself simply unable to propose. Hortense waited with patience for a long time. She's now married to Paul.	Peter is just as much a bachelor today as if he had decided definitely not to propose.