Thenirvana fallacy is theinformal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the "perfect solution fallacy".
By creating afalse dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely unrealistic—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".
It is also related to theappeal to purity fallacy where the person rejects all criticism on basis of it being applied to a non ideal case.
InLa Bégueule (1772),Voltaire wroteLe mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "Theperfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").
The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economistHarold Demsetz in 1969,[2][3] who said:[1]
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. Thisnirvana approach differs considerably from acomparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.
The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.[4] This is an example ofblack and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.
It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy ofmisleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (seeavailability heuristic).
The fallacy is a type offalse dilemma.
