Final answer:
The argument stating if abolition isn't entirely possible, no action should be taken is a perfectionist or nirvana fallacy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The claim that if abolition of something isn't possible, we shouldn't attempt to address it at all, represents a logical fallacy known as a perfectionist fallacy or nirvana fallacy. This fallacy occurs when the argument dismisses a course of action because it does not solve the issue perfectly, instead of recognizing that partial solutions may still offer improvement. In contrast to the fallacies of diversion, such as strawman or red herring, which seek to distract from the central issue, the perfectionist fallacy sets an unrealistic standard of achieving complete success as the only acceptable outcome.
In addressing fallacies, it is crucial not to conflate the naturalistic fallacy, which involves deriving values from facts, with the perfectionist fallacy's dismissal of any improvement that is not absolute. One must also avoid the ethnocentric fallacy, which assumes one's values should apply universally.
Lastly, understanding that the begging the question fallacy involves assuming a controversial premise without argument, and the burden of proof as it pertains to claims of existence, are key elements in dissecting logical arguments correctly.