Not as bad as

{{bronze}}{{logicnav}}
{{cquote|If you can't complain about X just because there exists another problem, Y, that's worse than X, then the only person who has any right to complain at all is the person who objectively has it worst in every way possible. The other 7 billion people's problems are meaningless by this reasoning.|||/u/frictionless_vacuum<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3xw2xt/trackreddit/cy8h0l7/</ref>}}

The "'''not as bad as'''" [[fallacy]], also known as the '''fallacy of relative privation''',<ref>{{cite book |last=Bennett |first=Bo |date=2012 |title=Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies |chapter=[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/155/Relative_Privation Relative Privation] |access-date=March 10, 2016}}</ref> asserts that:
#If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
#The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
#In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A. 

In other words: nothing matters if it's not ''literally'' the worst thing happening.<ref group=note>This has also been expressed as "the good old 'someone, somewhere has it worse so you have no right to complain' fallacy" and the "'starving kids in Africa' fallacy".</ref> It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong. Since they are fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other (usually worse) actions.

This fallacy is a form of the [[moral equivalence]] [[logical fallacy|fallacy]].

==Forms==
{{Ctransquote|To be good, it is not enough to be better than the worst.|[[Latin]]|Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem.|||Lucius Annaeus Seneca}}
There are a few different reasons someone will want to pull a "not as bad as" comparison. Consider a generic [[argument]] about something, '''A''', and the reasoning below:
{{syl
|2=B happened.
|4=B is worse than A.
|5=C|6=Therefore A is justified.
}}

This is the most blatantly fallacious form of the argument and is a hindsight version of the "not as bad as" argument that states past actions can legitimise current actions. The existence of a worse atrocity in the past, however, does not actually justify ''anything'' — it merely points out that there have been similar things in the past. People who use this as a justification may be well aware that it's logically fallacious, and use it purely as [[rhetoric]], or as a distraction. [[False dilemma|It removes all nuances]].

==Examples==
[[File:People Have It Worse Than You SMBC.gif|thumb|right|Indeed. ([http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2314 Created] by [[SMBC]])]]
[[Holocaust denial|Holocaust deniers]] and [[Neo-Nazi|apologists]] use this quite frequently: "the [[Holocaust]] was bad, but [[Stalin]] [[Holodomor|killed more]]", ignoring the [[Axis]]'s willingness to encourage [[World War II]] and is irrelevant if discussing murders carried out under [[Hitler]]'s regime. Similarly, "Internet [[censorship]] in the [[US]] isn't as bad as internet censorship in [[China]]" is true, but not relevant to discussing the erosion of [[free speech]] in a country that holds free speech to be an important part of [[human rights]]. It is irrational to set the bar of what makes something wrong at the worst possible atrocity, as doing so would justify all other actions except the one that is judged to be the worst at any given moment.

It is also used occasionally as a particularly underhanded [[emotional appeal]], in an attempt to guilt trip someone, in order to have them stop voicing a complaint. For two examples, there's "Kids of the past had it ''way'' harder than modern kids, so modern kids should shut up!!" (When I was your age…) and the ever-prevalent "Kids are starving in Africa!" argument, often used by parents to shut down a debate posed to them by a child, and also by others to shut down any complaint someone might have about something affecting them personally in the here and now.

===Sometimes valid===
:Action '''B''' is worse than action '''A'''.
:Therefore action '''A''' is the right thing to do.

This is perhaps the most valid comparison that can be drawn if discussing two courses of action that can be taken, but like most "not as bad as" arguments potentially suffers from the fallacies of the [[false dichotomy]] and [[argument from adverse consequences]]. If the argument is about ranking things from bad to worse then it's fine; but you cannot justify '''A''' by citing only '''B''' because the two may not have anything to do with each other. This is common if secret option '''C''' is actually the best, but someone wants to make a [[red herring]] to avoid anyone spotting its existence.

:'''B''' happens more frequently, is more dangerous, or causes more harm than '''A'''.
:Therefore '''A''' can be ignored.

This form crops up often when discussing [[discrimination]], but seriously falls into the false dichotomy trap by implying that one can only focus their attention on '''A''' ''or'' '''B''' and is incapable of expressing moral outrage over both. Oftentimes, regressive groups that oppose each other ([[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalists]] vs. [[Islamic fundamentalism|Islamic fundamentalists]], or [[White supremacy|white supremacists]] vs. [[Black supremacy|black supremacists]], or [[Fascism|fascists]] vs. [[Communism|communists]], for example) may point to their mirror image and say that the other group is worse than them, to create [[false balance]] or pretend that the other group is an equally big threat when they aren't. The [[Ku Klux Klan|Klan]] would have a much easier time seizing power in America than the [[New Black Panther Party]], even if neither would have an easy time in absolute terms. But that doesn't mean you can't hate both white and black supremacy, while at the same time acknowledging that Western countries, being mostly white, are much more vulnerable to white supremacy.

<span id="Scarce_resources">A similar form appeals to allocation of [[economics|scarce]] resources, such as money, time, or attention, to give the best "bang-for-your-buck":</span>
:We have a finite budget that we can use to fix either '''A''' or '''B'''.
:'''A''' is not as bad as '''B'''.
:Therefore, we should fix '''B'''.

Setting priorities for limited resources is often a valid pragmatic argument when picking the lesser of two evils, even if it doesn't morally absolve '''A''' of any wrongs.

:'''A''' is a better option because its only alternative is '''B''', which is worse.
:Therefore we must keep '''A'''. 

This is a pragmatic argument if the alternative, '''B''', really does pose a real threat, and there is no secret option '''C'''. Would assassinating a [[dictator]] in some random country create a power-vacuum that plunges the entire region into war? Then we best put up with the bastard for now! It's also a common [[pro-choice]] argument; a legal [[abortion]] in a [[medical]] clinic is [[statistic]]ally the safer option compared to a [[back alleys|back alley]] with some bleach and a coat hanger. So even if you believe abortion is [[moral absolutism|always morally wrong]], providing legal access to safe abortions is preferable to women risking their lives by having unsafe abortions.

Whether these latter forms of the "not as bad as" argument are fallacious comes down to the use of a false dichotomy and whether moral justification is sought ''exclusively'' through this argument.

==Caveat==

While this fallacy is certainly one to be argued against, the rational arguer should be cautious in doing so in cases where '''X''' and '''Y''' lie on a recognisable continuum. Taken too far in such a case, efforts against this fallacy ("'''X''' is not as bad as '''Y'''") may readily lead an arguer into a [[continuum fallacy]] ("'''X''' and '''Y''' fall on a continuum, therefore '''X''' is indistinguishable from, or equally bad to, '''Y'''). To avoid this, the arguer must be sure to argue against the conclusion drawn from the difference between '''X''' and '''Y''', and not against the claim of difference itself (unless there is some rational basis for arguing that the difference truly does not exist).

==Other examples==
*[[Stalin apologetics|Stalin apologists]] will commonly use this logic, saying "Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler" and will use this to ignore or deny Stalin's own genocides and crimes or even justify them in some cases. He was also ''not as bad as'' the [[Tsar]]!<ref group="note">And of course, conservatives retroactively claim that the Tsar was justified because he wasn't as bad as Stalin!</ref>
*[[Men's rights movement|Men's rights activists]] frequently try to downplay the [[Western world]]'s own issues with [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]] by comparing it to conditions in the [[Middle East]]. This can go from lazy and dishonest comparisons to open [[Islamophobia]], [[white supremacy]], and xenophobia very quickly.
*"[[Women]] are [[stereotype]]d by the [[media]], but it ''isn't as big of a problem as'' [[poverty]], [[war]]s, or [[human rights]] in the world!" (See [[Bjorn Lomborg]] for a similar one on [[global warming]].)
*"Yes, the US ''is'' keeping secret [[prison]]s, but we're ''not as bad as'' [[Saddam Hussein]]!"
*"Sure, [[US]] forces [[torture]]d people in [[Afghanistan]], but it's ''not as bad as'' what the [[Japan]]ese did in WWII."
*"[[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] [[priest]]s may [[Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church|rape]] children, but [[Whataboutism|what about]] all the bad things Stalin did?"
*"[[Barack Obama]] might be detaining people without trial and bombing civilians in other countries, but [[George W. Bush|Bush]] did far worse."
*[[John McCain]]'s "Sure, Americans are 'war-weary' but what about the 'war-weariness' of [[Syria]]ns?"<ref>[http://wfae.org/post/mccain-sanctions-are-not-enough-against-putin McCain: Sanctions Are Not Enough Against Putin], NPR</ref>
*"[[Smoking]] may be a bad thing, but it's ''not as bad as'' global warming/car exhausts/body odor/etc."
*"Sure, many developed countries may still have homelessness, but at least here they have bridges to sleep under and garbage cans to eat out of!"
*Sure, institutional discrimination against non-Christians exists in European countries with an established religion, but it's ''not as bad as'' [[Saudi Arabia]]; besides, look at those freaks in the [[megachurches]] in the US!
*Gun rights advocates sometimes argue that gun ownership shouldn't be restricted, because people driving cars cause more deaths than people using guns and we're not restricted from owning cars.<ref group="note">But they ''are'' regulated, aren't they?</ref>
*[[Sam Harris]] has said that obtaining information through [[torture]] is less immoral than killing innocents as collateral damage, so in any scenario where torture could prevent the need for collateral damage, torture is the less unethical thing to do. This is a valid use of the argument, though it ignores all practical considerations about the efficacy of torture (or lack thereof). He has also said that allowing secular tyrants like [[Saddam Hussein]] to oppress their populace is a better alternative than allowing populist [[theocrat]]s like [[DAESH|Daesh]] to rise to power.
*"[[Bashar al-Assad]] may be a brutal tyrant, but at least he's ''not as bad as'' Daesh!"
*"American [[slavery]] may have been bad, but the Arabs did worse!"
*Some [[naturopathy|naturopaths]] and promoters of [[integrative medicine]] level criticisms against conventional medical research and practices, claiming that the [[skepticism]] of CAM is therefore misguided, [[hypocritical]], and/or ideological.<ref>Katz, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/cleaning-the-house-of-med_b_8548282.html Cleaning the House of Medicine]"</ref> However, as [[Ben Goldacre]] succinctly puts it, "flaws in [[aircraft]] design do not prove the existence of {{wpl|Magic carpet|magic carpets|."}}
*"[[RationalWiki]] may have just stepped on your personal toe, but it's ''not as bad as'' [[Conservapedia]]!"
*[[George W. Bush]] was ''not as bad as'' [[Donald Trump]].
* [[Donald Trump]] fans often claim that Trump is ''not as bad as'' [[Barack Obama|Obama]].
* When [[Law enforcement|police]] want to speak to someone about a minor offence, the response is often along the lines of “shouldn’t you be catching real criminals?”, as if their offense is not worth bothering about just because others commit worse offenses. And that itself is ''not as bad as'' the people who just shout "[[Police brutality|ACAB]]" at them…
* "Sure, British colonialism in Africa was bad, but India had it much worse."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0obAkOMkIX4]</ref>
* "[[Slavery]]/[[Confederate States of America|The Confederacy]] was bad, but the US genocided Native Americans! [[Lost Cause of the South|CHECKMATE, LINCOLNITES!]]
* [[Ukraine]] is not suffering as much as [[Palestine]]. <ref group=note>Add some typical vatnik arguments such as Ukraine allegedly being a NATO puppet.</ref>

==In a nutshell==
[[File:RelavisticFallacy.png|500px|center|thumb|Your point that the world contains multiple problems is a real slam-dunk argument against fixing any of them.]]

==See also==
*[[First world problems]]
*[[Slippery slope]]
*[[Two wrongs make a right]]
*[[False dilemma]]
*[[Balance fallacy]]
*[[Whataboutism|Whataboutery]]
*[[What's the harm]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}  

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Fallacies of ambiguity]]

Categories: Fallacies of ambiguity