Issue is, humans don’t care only about benefitting society — so we are more likely to use the prefect as an excuse not to do something good, rather than actually do the perfect, harder thing instead of the good thing.
Case in point, did the author actually work overtime, or donate extra, on election day instead of voting? I’d bet he didn’t. Nothing against him — that’s what most people will do if they buy his line of reasoning.
If you are actually going to do the overtime/donate thing though, good for you!
Why is the question bad? For a resource-constrained actor who cares about benefiting society it is the ONLY relevant question.
Again, you and Jalex Stark are ignoring the "all else being equal" part.
Google “perfect is the enemy of the good fallacy”
Issue is, humans don’t care only about benefitting society — so we are more likely to use the prefect as an excuse not to do something good, rather than actually do the perfect, harder thing instead of the good thing.
Case in point, did the author actually work overtime, or donate extra, on election day instead of voting? I’d bet he didn’t. Nothing against him — that’s what most people will do if they buy his line of reasoning.
If you are actually going to do the overtime/donate thing though, good for you!
I'm aware of the saying. Every MBA Business Bill uses it twice a day. It's not a logical fallacy. Quit attempting to apply it as such.
"Issue is, humans don’t care only about benefitting society..." - Ok, so what are we even arguing here? What is the motivation for voting?
It’s pretty simple… if you can get yourself to informed-vote, do that, because it’s good.
If you can get yourself to work overtime and donate $50, do that, because it’s even better.
If you can manage both, even better still.
If you can only do the first thing, that’s fine too.
Maybe we agree.