Argumentum ad lazarum: Difference between revisions
more compared to → more than |
Fyodor Bronnikov painting |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{more footnotes|date=October 2017}} | {{more footnotes|date=October 2017}} | ||
{{Italic title}} | {{Italic title}} | ||
'''''Argumentum ad lazarum''''' or '''appeal to poverty''' is the [[informal fallacy]] of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after [[Lazarus | [[File:Fedor Bronnikov 007.jpg|thumb|An 1886 painting of [[Rich man and Lazarus|Lazarus at the rich man's gate]] by [[Fyodor Bronnikov]]]] | ||
'''''Argumentum ad lazarum''''' or '''appeal to poverty''' is the [[informal fallacy]] of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after [[Rich man and Lazarus|Lazarus]], a beggar in a [[New Testament]] [[parable]] who receives his reward in the afterlife. A common summary of the fallacy is "Poor, but honest". | |||
The opposite is the ''[[argumentum ad crumenam]]''. | The opposite is the ''[[argumentum ad crumenam]]''. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:13, 19 June 2025
Template:Short description Template:More footnotes Template:Italic title
Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the informal fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after Lazarus, a beggar in a New Testament parable who receives his reward in the afterlife. A common summary of the fallacy is "Poor, but honest".
The opposite is the argumentum ad crumenam.
Some experimental evidence supports the appeal to poverty. A 2017 study by Igor Grossmann and Justin Brienza at the University of Waterloo in Canada found that when "wisdom" is defined as the ability to consider opposing perspectives and find a compromise that defuses an interpersonal dispute, poor and working-class people are more likely to show such an ability than are those in higher socioeconomic classes.[1][2] As with all fallacies though, the tendency is not absolute.
Examples
- "Family farms are struggling to get by so when they say we need to protect them, they must be on to something."
- "The homeless tell us it's hard to find housing. Thus it must be."
- "The monks have forsworn all material possessions. They must have achieved enlightenment."
- "All you need to know about the civil war in that country is that the rebels live in mud huts, while the general who sends troops against them sits in a luxurious, air-conditioned office."
References
- ↑ Michael Price. "The lower your social class, the 'wiser' you are, suggests new study". Science, 2017-12-20. doi:10.1126/science.aar8218
- ↑ Justin P. Brienza, Igor Grossmann. "Social class and wise reasoning about interpersonal conflicts across regions, persons and situations". Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2017-12-20. Accessed 2017-12-23. Script error: No such module "doi".