Nirvana fallacy

{{sources needed}}
{{logicnav}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with the fallacy of confusing the general term "Nirvana" with {{wpl|Nirvana (band)|1990s grunge music|.}}}}
{{cquote|Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely.|||Rule 14, ''Rules of disinformation''<ref>http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html</ref>}}
The '''Nirvana fallacy''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which one assumes that a perfect solution to a given problem exists, and rejects more realistic answers in favour of it.

It can also be applied disingenuously to stone wall solutions to problems that some do not think are problems.

The fallacy is an ''[[ad hoc]]'' [[moralistic fallacy]] and an [[informal fallacy]].

The term "Nirvana approach" was coined by the prominent economist Harold Demsetz, who famously wrote:<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Demsetz |first=Harold |date=1969 |title=Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/724977 |journal=The Journal of Law & Economics |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=1–22 |issn=0022-2186}}</ref> 
{{quotebox|The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.}}

==Alternate names==
{{cquote|The best is the enemy of the good. (''Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.'') |||[[Voltaire]]<ref>[https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Contes_en_vers_(Voltaire)/La_B%C3%A9gueule ''La Bégueule'']] by Voltaire (1772).</ref>}}
*Perfectionism
*Perfectionist fallacy
*Perfect solution fallacy

==Form==
#The problem X has a perfect solution A.
#Therefore, imperfect yet realistic solutions B, C, and D are wrong because they are inferior to the idealised A.

==Examples==
* The argument that [[abstinence]] is a perfect form of [[contraception]]<ref group=note>[[virgin birth|Religious counterexamples]] notwithstanding.</ref> ignores that some people might actually want to have sex while using the contraception, and therefore assumes a perfect solution. This argument is usually used to reject condoms because they "only" have a 99% rate of preventing pregnancy.
* The [[anti-science]] argument "[[Science doesn't know everything|science does not know everything]] about X, therefore it is worthless compared to some [[pseudoscience]] which claims it does."
* The [[anti-intellectual]] argument that some [[scientific]] research doesn't cure [[cancer]], therefore is a waste of [[money]]. Bonus [[Irony meter|irony points]] when using this argument on the [[LHC]] and particle physics in general, which resulted in the [[radiation]] therapies for cancers. Particle physics also was responsible for [[NMRI]] machines to diagnose cancers earlier.  And ion thrusters, because hell yeah!
* The more [[woo]]-prone parts of the [[environmentalist]] movement (e.g., [[hard green]]) often fall prey to assuming that ''reducing'' [[pollution]] is worthless, favouring an idealised state where there is no pollution at all.
* Proclaiming that any medication that has side effects is worthless, or that any treatment less than 100% effective is a waste of time. Also often used by medical [[quack]]s who will argue that treatment to mitigate symptoms is pointless [[Treat the cause, not the symptom|because it is not a cure]].
* [[Chemophobia|Chemophobic]] arguments based on exposure levels which assume [[The dose makes the poison|any exposure is unacceptable]], regardless of whether there is any meaningful risk to health.
* [[Mental illness denial]] based on the argument that since we don't fully understand the causes of mental illness or how exactly the treatments for it work, mental illness therefore must not be real and the treatments must be ineffective and dangerous. Often this argument will refer to historical examples of psychiatric treatments that did more harm than good (e.g., [[lobotomy]]) or unsubstantiated claims such as that [[SSRIs]] cause homicidal ideation and are responsible for [[mass shooting]]s.
* The notion that because a [[politician]] or other public figure is [[Inverse stopped clock|not perfect]] in some area of [[social justice]], that person should not be praised for the positive things they say or do, and perhaps those things should not even be recognised or acknowledged (which is different from saying that anyone who gets it right in any way should therefore be shielded from criticism 
if
 when they get it wrong).
* Rejecting efforts to abolish animal exploitation on the grounds that "people will not want to stop eating meat, so it's better to focus on killing animals in the best way possible."
* [[Gun nut|Gun Extremists]] in the USA often reject reasonable law and regulation reform on the grounds that "criminals will just ignore laws" or "criminals will get their hands on guns anyways", ignoring the fact that [[Gun control|gun laws]] do in fact reduce crime and the availability of illegal firearms.<ref>[http://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/ Rebutting the ‘Criminals don’t follow laws’ and ‘Gun Control only hurts law-abiding citizens’ argument against gun control]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Inverse stopped clock]]
*[[Slothful induction]]
*[[Teleology]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Nirvana fallacy}}
*[http://skepdic.com/nirvanafallacy.html perfect solution fallacy], [[Skeptic's Dictionary]]
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Perfectionist Perfectionist fallacy], Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
*[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/135-nirvana-fallacy NIRVANA FALLACY], Logically Fallacious
*[https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/comment-page-1/ Perfect Solution Fallacy], The Logical Place
*[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PerfectSolutionFallacy Perfect Solution Fallacy], [[TV Tropes]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20090302204244/http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM#233 PERFECTIONIST], Guide to Objectivism

==References==
{{reflist}}

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

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Ad hoc]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Ad hoc, Informal fallacies