Argumentum ad lazarum: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→References: Removing dead link |
invalid inference is an error in logic, thus logical fallacy - view reference |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Italic title}} |
{{Italic title}} |
||
'''''Argumentum ad lazarum''''' or '''appeal to poverty''' is the [[ |
'''''Argumentum ad lazarum''''' or '''appeal to poverty''' is the [[formal fallacy]] of thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after [[Lazarus and Dives|Lazarus]], a beggar in a [[New Testament]] [[parable]] who receives his reward in the afterlife. |
||
This is popularly exploited as the statement, "Poor, but honest." |
This is popularly exploited as the statement, "Poor, but honest." |
Revision as of 05:13, 10 April 2015
Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the formal fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct 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.
This is popularly exploited as the statement, "Poor, but honest."
The opposite is the argumentum ad crumenam.
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.