Nirvana Fallacy and the Die-Hard Defenders of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

IMGUR

The philosopher Voltaire (real name François-Marie Aroue) was said to have said, "Perfect is the enemy of good." To define the Nirvana fallacy, we can look at Logically Fallacious to help us define it:

Description: Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.

Logical Form:

X is what we have.

Y is the perfect situation.

Therefore, X is not good enough.

Example #1:

What’s the point of making drinking illegal under the age of 21?  Kids still manage to get alcohol.

Explanation: The goal in setting a minimum age for drinking is to deter underage drinking, not abolish it completely.  Suggesting the law is fruitless based on its failure to abolish underage drinking completely, is fallacious.

Example #2:

What’s the point of living?  We’re all going to die anyway.

Explanation: There is an implication that the goal of life is not dying.  While that is certainly a worthwhile goal, many would argue that it is a bit empty on its own, creating this fallacy where one does not really exist.

Exception: Striving for perfection is not the same as the nirvana fallacy.  Having a goal of perfection or near perfection, and working towards that goal, is admirable.  However, giving up on the goal because perfection is not attained, despite major improvements being attained, is fallacious.

Tip: Sometimes good enough is really good enough.

The definition of the Nirvana Fallacy reminds me of the mindset of a particular group in the Philippines. Who are these people in that specific group? I'd like to call them those who are so against even amending even one part of the "sacred" 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Even the most recent move to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte could've probably been easily solved if the Philippines was under a parliamentary system (read here). Sure, the parliamentary system has its own disadvantages. However, we need to understand that it's still better than the presidential system. For example, if Sara indeed has questionable funds, that should already be more than enough to make the Parliament lose confidence. Unfortunately, cherry pickers like Raissa Espinosa-Robles still continue to insist the Philippines was really under a parliamentary system (read here). 

Examining the Nirvana Fallacy of the die-hard defenders of the "infallible" 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

If I could list all the favorite sources of information of the 1987 die-hard defenders, it's already going to be:

1. The framers who still believe that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, is a "sacred document" or treat it as such. In fact, it's noteworthy that when I quote from more credible sources (ex. Kishore Mahbubani), somebody would say, "Well, I'd rather listen to Atty. Hilario Davide Jr., because he's my countryman." Red herrings are also often thrown (such as because Mahbubani is a "Bumbay"), to dismiss the valid argument of a man who saw Singapore rise. 
2. The DepEd textbooks might be another noteworthy source of error. Google "DepEd textbooks factual error" and you may find a good source of them. Why are private schools even using DepEd textbooks? Let's face it, good teachers quitting the teaching job might be contributed by this catastrophe.
3. For Filipino Catholics, it could be as simple-minded as, "Well, it came from the mouth of a member of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines." It could be as absurd as, "It came from the mouth of Archbishop Socrates Villegas." Okay, the CBCP is welcome to have a voice if they can defend their claim. Unfortunately, it can be as absurd as Villegas telling you to ask Davide (or the Monsods) and then the latter tell you to ask the former. It's Circular Reasoning!

I would like to focus on the Davide vs. Mahbubani argument. I often quoted Mahbubani, because he, too, like Davide, was a former United Nations diplomat. Ironic that Mahbubani is a boomer, but he's not as stubborn as the typical boomer. Red herrings can be thrown about Mahbubani's armpits because he's ethnically Indian. One might cite all the disadvantages of an open economy. There will always be disadvantages to free trade. That's why there are legislated regulations on economic activity. However, the problem is that Davide's arguments are full of red herrings. For example, Davide argues like this:

Can we expect foreigners at the helm or control of the educational system to seriously and healthily obey this state policy on education?” he said

Even funnier, Davide commits the Nirvana fallacy when he said this:

I will not hesitate to say again that amendments to or revision of the Constitution at this time would be a lethal experiment, a fatal hit, a plunge to death,” he said.

So when's the best time to change it? Again, it's always better to have continuous improvement than sudden perfection (read here). The big difference between Davide and Mahbubani is the direction. Davide is probably still waiting for this "perfect solution" when there's no such thing. Meanwhile, Mahbubani states this argument, which would beat Davide's searching for "instant Nirvana" from the Asian Century Institute:

We are not in nirvana yet. There are still challenges. We have our ups and downs. But we are now living through unprecedented peace and prosperity.

Mahbubani never thought of the "right time". Instead, Mahbubani sought continuous improvements because you'll never always get your timing right. That's why I'd listen to Mahbubani over Davide, even if Davide is my fellow Filipino. 

I could imagine Davide and Mahbubani as entrepreneurs. Davide would be like the businessman who would probably still use a typewriter, because no PC is perfect. If Davide was using a PC, he would probable be still using Windows 2.0, also from 1987. Mahbubani would be one who would upgrade equipment when need arises. Davide might reason to Mahbubani, "I will not update unless I get a PC and OS that's 100% immune to viruses." The idea is laughable because while no PC is perfect, there will be some setbacks (like what happened to Crowdstrike). However, we can see how the Windows 11 problem was later resolved. Mahbubani would probably calm down, maybe look for a better software than Crowdstrike (which was the cause of the BSOD), and get things revolved. Davide may brag he didn't have to deal with BSOD, but his PC is already getting assaulted by viruses. Mahbubani might laugh at Davide. Mahbubani had less temporal setbacks over Davide. Davide's waiting for the "perfect OS and PC" would sooner or later, bankrupt the business he's running. 

From the Malaysian Insight, I'd like to cite Dr. Mahatir Mohamad, who I love to slap at the faces of both the Diehard Duterte Supporters and the Dilawans:

So please do not stop learning, education is a lifetime process because what I knew when I graduated in 1954 is no longer relevant today.

In short, being a Summa Cumlaude back in 19-forgotten means nothing today. It would be better to have no honors and learned a lot than the opposite! One can brag about one's statue of gold (my exaggerated figure of speech). One can spend so much time polishing that statue of gold while one crumbles. One may be ignoring one's failure. The person spends so much time polishing his or her statue of gold, never mind that he or she is failing miserably in the present. That's why some cum laudes haven't done anything useful with their life. Being a cum laude is no license to stop learning. Don't be like Raoul Abellar Manuel, a cum laude, who unfortunately, has become so arrogant. 

Every learning process will have flaws. We will have setbacks. There's always time to be critical about the results. Innovation is never perfect. Sometimes, new ideas fail when the implementation isn't done properly. However, there are lessons to learn. Instead, one must look at it as the road to Nirvana is a process involving learning. Unfortunately, those who stick to their old errors, while waiting for the perfect system, would never reach the Nirvana they wish they achieve.