DILEMMA is the name of a special type of reasoning. In its commonest form its conclusion presents one with two alternatives. When employed in debate the usual aim is to present alternatives both of which are unpalatable to the opponent. Thus, e.g. in answer to the contention of a protectionist that protective import duties both increase revenue and stimulate home industry, it has been argued : "If protective duties increase revenue, they cannot also stimulate home industry; and if they stimulate home industry, they cannot also increase revenue.
"But they do either the one or the other.
"Therefore they either cannot stimulate home industry, or they cannot increase revenue." (That is they cannot do both at once.) The unpalatable alternatives are called the "horns" of the dilemma. This familiar use of the dilemma has led to an extension of its meaning, and the term is applied popularly to any kind of situation in which one is confronted with unsatisfactory alterna tives, as, e.g., when a country, exhausted by war, finds itself in the dilemma of either impoverishing its people or repudiating its debts.
Valid arguments in the form of the dilemma are not very com mon, hence few situations can be adequately summed up in two alternatives. The dilemma is consequently used frequently in a rather loose manner by plausible orators. Hence there is an impression abroad that dilemmas are merely sophistical tricks. But this is a mistake. Dilemmas can be, and sometimes are, quite sound. Their association with political discussions or merely captious argumentations is accidental ; and the alternatives which their conclusions present need not be unpalatable. (See LoGrc. )