I usually see perfect-world logic in political and socioeconomic debates, such as when debating welfare or entitlement programs. An extreme example of perfect-world logic was an LDS friend who argued that we should all just live the United Order. While this would be the perfect solution, it would not work in practice. The United Order requires that everyone involved willingly give everything, which is
While not all cases of perfect-world logic are as extreme or obvious as bring up the United Order, we often hear similar fallacies without noticing.
Perhaps it's most often disguised in phrases such as "Wouldn't it just be best if..." or "Shouldn't we really just..." Notice how the word "just" is a bit of a motif in those phrases? "Just" is actually the the crucial part of perfect-world logic, as the limiting scope of it's meaning destabilizes any rebuttal. When scoping use of "just" is conjoined with the absolute truths that perfect-world logic is derived from, it becomes difficult to dispute without acknowledging the absolute truths, thus weakening the dissenting opinion.
However, the largest problem with perfect-world logic is it simply doesn't work. It's like nailing Jell-O to a tree. When we eliminate human tendencies and use only azoic rules, we ignore the very essence of any given problem's core- humans. When solving a problem, we must take into account perceived, expected and unexpected actions and reactions of both the affected and unaffected. We cannot force rules upon those who do not wish to have them.
Ultimately, large complex issues will have large and complex solutions for as long as we live in an imperfect society, a society that includes innumerable opinions, preferences and lifestyles.