The nirvana fallacy is a fallacy in which someone rejects an answer to a question or a solution to a problem because it is not a perfect solution, even if the proposed perfect solution is unrealistic or unfeasible. This is a fallacy because while a solution may not be perfect, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is ineffective or wrong.
This is very closely related to another fallacy called the perfect solution fallacy, which is the fallacy of assuming there is a perfect solution to a problem when there isn’t one. The difference between the two fallacies is very subtle, so let’s look at each one more closely.
The nirvana fallacy is when lesser solutions are rejected because they aren’t perfect. Consider this example:
We shouldn’t be wasting time researching drugs to decrease the symptoms of HIV. We should be finding a cure for HIV.
This is a nirvana fallacy because many if not most people would agree that a total cure for HIV would be a “perfect solution”, and while no cure exists yet, it is within the realm of possibility. But just because such a solution is possible, that doesn’t mean we should neglect other treatments that still increase the quality of life for people with HIV/AIDS. Rejecting short term treatments in favor of a complete cure that doesn’t even exist yet is a nirvana fallacy.
