Well neither of these pages,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_nativism?wprov=sfla1

has the other in its See Also list, but I feel there might be a connection.

The "pro" side calls it being realistic or pragmatic. The "con" side calls it being cynical or pessimistic. But it's more of a judgment than an argument. Things like realism, pragmatism, cynicism, and pessimism are therefore not fallacies. At worst they are bad dispositions based on false judgments.

Basically, you're describing what is generally called ‘cynicism’. It’s not a fallacious argument as such, more a negative attitude towards human nature. (The term “cynicism” originates from the teachings and practices of the Cynic philosophers in ancient Greece. Unlike its modern usage which generally denotes a distrustful or pessimistic attitude, the original Cynic philosophy was more about leading a life in accordance with nature, rejecting conventional desires for wealth, power, and fame, and valuing self-sufficiency and freedom. The original cynics were really more like Hindu ascetics.)

Thank you everyone (and very interesting about the origins of cynicism - reminds me of other terms that have had their meanings transformed/simplified over time).

Although I understand the application of the modern definition of cynicism, it does seem an inexact one. I suppose this is to be expected due to the nature of language. But I feel the need to bang on. The issue is, I am seeing this kind of argument tactic used more and more in discussions around large existential issues, and it feels deserving of a more specific definition.

Kismet led me to this essay, which I find reflective (and expands upon) what I'm attempting to focus on. I searched for the term 'futility bias' from other sources but I haven't found anything.

https://www.okdoomer.io/futility-bias/

The examples listed in your linkt appear to be a combination of several formal and informal fallacies. Some candidates come to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability


And esp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

The issue is, I am seeing this kind of argument tactic used more and more in discussions around large existential issues, and it feels deserving of a more specific definition. — Mihai

I generally hear this argument called an appeal to cynicism.

The opposite is also used. People often argue something along the lines of, 'Humans have always survived and thrived, so climate change/war/whatever threat won't impact on our survival'. In other words, don't do anything, it will be alright.

But the issue to me with your example isn't whether their approach pivots on cynicism or pessimism; it's an inferential fallacy, or more specifically, a hasty generalization fallacy. The person is making an inference that because P often seems to the case, P is always the case. Which is clearly untrue.

I would be interested to see an example of this appeal to cynicism in action to understand how it is being applied. Some instances are more convincing than others.

The Nirvāṇa Fallacy is a new one to me, must admit. :-)

Everything in the ‘futility bias’ article you linked really just amounts to cynicism - ‘don’t even try, you know it’s never going to work’. Might also be called defeatism, pessimism, or fatalism. In any case, it’s an attitudinal issue, not a logical fallacy per se.

Ok, thanks so much everyone for the input. Plenty to consider here and I really appreciate it.

I'm glad Mihai got some meaningful replies, but was this ever a question in mathematical philosophy? If the moderators had been more vigilant, they would have moved it to Ethics/morality/religion.

alan1000, this is the second over 6 month old necropost I've seen you resurrect. Is this accidental or on purpose? Check to see how old these are next time.

Having not read any responses my take is:

You're describing despair, in other words. This is a organisational tool that often avoids sunk-cost fallacies in one's behaviour. But, when it is faulty, it has one missing most opportunities for novelty that are available - the attitude doesn't stop with Human behaviour, unfortunately.