Fallacy of Short-Term versus Long-Term

The fallacy of short-term versus long-term is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Fallacy of Short-Term versus Long-Term occurs when a false dichotomy is presented that we must either address the short-term need or else the long-term need. It may be possible to address both. It may be that neither has to be addressed at all, since one or the other of them could have been pushed off to the future.

Examples of the Fallacy of Short-Term versus Long-Term

"The question is, should we spend the money on new infrastructure or on maintenance of the existing building?"

Perhaps it may be wise to do both. If the building is going to be abandoned, it may make sense to stop maintaining it, and it may also make sense to avoid putting any money into new infrastructure. All options should be considered.

Student: "My goal is to graduate and become an engineer."

Counselor: "That's a good goal. That will require that you attend all your classes, take notes, pay attention, and really study."

Student: "I haven't given that much thought yet. I'm concentrating on the long term goal. You should see that pictures on my walls. I have pictures of all the things I'm going to be able to do and to buy once I graduate."

Do you think that this student will graduate?