Lesser evil fallacy

The lesser evil fallacy is a sub-derivative fallacy of the 'either-or' fallacy or the 'appeal to extremes' fallacy. The lesser evil (or lesser evils) fallacy is where by a person, group or organisation present an option or options where they propose the option with the 'lesser evil' is the acceptable one. The fallacy occurs because it presumes there is no third or additional option, and is a 'limited options' attack.

The lesser evils fallacy relies on contrast logic that has no in-depth search algorithm to seem appealing on first observation.

Colloquialism
The lesser evil fallacy comes from social colloquialism representative of utilitarian thinking. In effect, people presume all options have to have some form of inherent evil, given a mistruth that life itself is evil, and the only way to get by is to choose the 'least evil' option.

This makes up part of the fallacy, as it rests on a social stereotype that life has to be intrinsically evil or wrong in order to progress.

Subsets
Subsets of the less evil fallacy (usually subtle sub-reasons that make up the fallacy but constitute fallacies in their own right) include:
 * The self-harm fallacy (appealing to your own loss as a means for supporting the lesser evil to avoid it)
 * The majority harm fallacy (appealing to the harm to a majority)
 * The reputation harm fallacy (appealing to your own possible loss of reputation)
 * The future ambition fallacy (appealing to your loss of future achievement or ambition)
 * The no alternative fallacy (appealing to a false limited choice option)
 * The ignorance gambit (appealing to a lack of knowledge on the subject or alternatives)

Countering
By default, the lesser evil option should be outrightly rejected, at the very least until thoroughly examined. Advocates of a lesser evil policy are often unkeen for any proper analysis for flaws in reasoning to go through, where-as individuals who are presenting genuine no-win scenarios will openly welcome alternatives to what they feel is a disastrous alternative.

Countering the lesser evil fallacy requires a series of approaches and stages which might vary from one lesser evil to another, depending on the proposed methodology:
 * The presented options, by default, should be immediately rejected with no questions asked. This will present a dispute and ergo open room for discussion.
 * A consultation or a research phase should be initialised around the subject being proposed. This will entail inquiring with experts, asking questions, and learning up on the subject. This is to offer a basis to analyse the flawed offerings from.
 * Valid questioning around the problem should be asked as to what it is trying to solve and what it is trying to avoid. This gives scope. It might be it's too ambitious or it's trying to solve a problem that isn't actually stated as a problem.
 * If the proposition involves a 'majority harm' fallacy, analyse to see if there is an acceptable harm or acceptably distributed loss. For example, a 'lesser evil' policy might suggest allowing people to die due to cutbacks, but a counter would be an acceptable majority harm, like an increase in taxes: people can bear the burden of reduced spending better than they can the loss of loved ones.
 * The counter for self-harm is determined by the individuals own resolution in the face of adversity. Is it a loss you can accept? For example, do you have to keep working at a now corrupt job, or is it possible to switch to a more moral alternative?
 * If you're unaware of any suggestions for alternatives, has anyone else done any research that could indicate a better suggestion? Could it be opened up to public discussion for more ideas?