When a person argues that Pinochet was good, because Allende would have been worse—what kind of fallacy is this?
It’s not a fallacy, it’s just different definitions of the word good. To some people good means better than the most likely alternative, to others good means the best out of all the alternatives.
The problem is, the person compares the real history of Pinochet with the imaginary alternative history of Allende.
That’s no real problem. We compare things all the time to imagined alternatives.
When a person argues that Pinochet was good, because Allende would have been worse—what kind of fallacy is this?
It’s not a fallacy, it’s just different definitions of the word good. To some people good means better than the most likely alternative, to others good means the best out of all the alternatives.
The problem is, the person compares the real history of Pinochet with the imaginary alternative history of Allende.
That’s no real problem. We compare things all the time to imagined alternatives.