Fallacy

38 Impossible Conditions: "the call for perfection"
This maneuver is related to the fallacy of objections (#37). In a discussion concerned with reducing theft in a locker room, all would recognize the suggestion, "If men were taught to be honest, we would need no locks" as a mere idle observation. In less obvious situations the contention that mankind should first be changed or perfected in one way or another may be successfully interposed to dull the blade of action.
EXAMPLE COMMENT
Every time in recent years that an administration has proposed a legislative program for extending the benefits of social security, the proposal has met with a determined opposition. Among other objections advanced, one can usually encounter some form of the following:
"We must pause to re-examine the whole philosophy of this movement. Americans are constantly being urged to attack poverty and insecurity by extending government help or raising wages again or enlarging the scope of benefits. Man does not live by bread alone. If we surfer from domestic insecurity, it comes from the spiritual poverty of our people and our lack of faith in ourselves. The crying need for our age is not the patching up of our institutions, but a reform of the human heart."
Moral improvement of man is worthy of constant seeking. Yet if social action in this world had to wait upon "a reform of the human heart," the practical solution of problems would come to a dead stop until the millennium.
Student Peter reads the Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional racial segregation in public schools. "Well," says Peter to his roommate, "I am sure that most people are aware that this problem must be overcome in the United States. But I'd think the court would realize racial discrimination cannot be ended by operation of law. People will have to change their attitudes, and then the segregation problem will settle itself." There are two things to notice about Peter's argument. First, it is a call for perfection as a prerequisite to action. Second, Peter indulges in an oversimplification, thereby creating a straw man which he proceeds to knock over as if this were impressive argument. Few people, certainly not the Supreme Court justices, think that a legal opinion or any other simple remedy will solve the problem of discrimination. So when Peter declares "racial discrimination cannot be stopped by operation of law," he is asserting what no one denies. That is, Peter's statement is obviously true, assuming he means "stopped solely by operation of law," which is what he must mean in order to put bones in his straw man. If Peter had said "racial discrimination cannot be stopped at all by operation of law," he would raise a real issue. His oversimplification avoids this issue. What he should be discussing, apart from the legal soundness of the decision, is whether or not law is a partial remedy for racial discrimination.

EXAMPLE	COMMENT
Every time in recent years that an administration has proposed a legislative program for extending the benefits of social security, the proposal has met with a determined opposition. Among other objections advanced, one can usually encounter some form of the following: "We must pause to re-examine the whole philosophy of this movement. Americans are constantly being urged to attack poverty and insecurity by extending government help or raising wages again or enlarging the scope of benefits. Man does not live by bread alone. If we surfer from domestic insecurity, it comes from the spiritual poverty of our people and our lack of faith in ourselves. The crying need for our age is not the patching up of our institutions, but a reform of the human heart."	Moral improvement of man is worthy of constant seeking. Yet if social action in this world had to wait upon "a reform of the human heart," the practical solution of problems would come to a dead stop until the millennium.
Student Peter reads the Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional racial segregation in public schools. "Well," says Peter to his roommate, "I am sure that most people are aware that this problem must be overcome in the United States. But I'd think the court would realize racial discrimination cannot be ended by operation of law. People will have to change their attitudes, and then the segregation problem will settle itself."	There are two things to notice about Peter's argument. First, it is a call for perfection as a prerequisite to action. Second, Peter indulges in an oversimplification, thereby creating a straw man which he proceeds to knock over as if this were impressive argument. Few people, certainly not the Supreme Court justices, think that a legal opinion or any other simple remedy will solve the problem of discrimination. So when Peter declares "racial discrimination cannot be stopped by operation of law," he is asserting what no one denies. That is, Peter's statement is obviously true, assuming he means "stopped solely by operation of law," which is what he must mean in order to put bones in his straw man. If Peter had said "racial discrimination cannot be stopped at all by operation of law," he would raise a real issue. His oversimplification avoids this issue. What he should be discussing, apart from the legal soundness of the decision, is whether or not law is a partial remedy for racial discrimination.