AppealtoWealth

Explanation
The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by
any argument that assumes that someone or
something is better simply because they are
wealthier or more expensive. It is the
opposite of the appeal to poverty.
In a society in which we often aspire to
wealth, where wealth is held up as that to
which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into
thinking that everything that is associated
with wealth is good. Rich people can be
thought to deserve more respect than poorer
people; more expensive goods can be thought
to be better than less expensive goods solely
because of their price.
This is a fallacy. Wealth need not be
associated with all that is good, and all that
is good need not be associated with wealth.

Examples
(1) My computer cost more than yours.
Therefore:
(2) My computer is better than yours.
(1)
Warren
is
richer
than
Wayne.
Therefore:
(2) Warren will make a better dinner-guest
than Wayne.
Each
of
these
arguments
takes
an
association with money to be a sign of
superiority. They therefore both commit the
appeal to wealth fallacy.

Appeal to Poverty
Explanation
The appeal to poverty fallacy is committed
when it is assumed that a position is correct
because it is held by the poor. The opposite
of the appeal to poverty is the appeal to
wealth.
There is sometimes a temptation to contrast
the excesses, greed, and immorality of the

rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of

the poor. This can give rise to arguments that
commit the appeal to poverty fallacy.
The poverty of a person that holds a view, of
course, does not establish that the view is
true; even the poor can sometimes err in their
beliefs.
Example
(1) The working classes respect family and
community
ties.
Therefore:
(2) Respect for family and community ties is
virtuous.
This argument is an appeal to poverty
because it takes the association between a
position and poverty as evidence of the
goodness of that position. There is, however,
no necessary connection between a position
being associated with poverty and its being
true, and so the argument is fallacious.
Appeal to Novelty
Explanation

An appeal to novelty is the opposite of an

appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty
assume that the newness of an idea is
evidence of its truth. They are thus also
related to the bandwagon fallacy.
That an idea is new certainly doesnt entail
that it is true. Many recent ideas have no
merit whatsoever, as history has shown;
every idea, including those that we now
reject as absurd beyond belief, were new at
one time. Some ideas that are new now will
surely go the same way.
Examples
(1) String theory is the
development
in
Therefore:
(2) String theory is true.

most

recent
physics.

(1) Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a

much
more
recent
development.
Therefore:
(2) Atheism is true.
Each of these arguments commits the appeal
to novelty fallacy. The former takes the
newness of string theory to be evidence that

string theory is true; the latter takes the

newness of atheism to be evidence that
atheism is true. Merely being a new idea, of
course, is no guarantee of truth. The
newness of string theory and atheism alone,
then, should not be taken to be evidence of
the truth of these two positions.
Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
Explanation
An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an
appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity
assume that older ideas are better, that the
fact that an idea has been around for a while
implies that it is true. This, of course, is not
the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and
new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore
cant learn anything about the truth of an
idea just by considering how old it is.
Example
(1) Religion dates back many thousands of
years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent
development).
Therefore:
(2) Some form of religion is true.

This argument is an appeal to antiquity

because the only evidence that it offers in
favour of religion is its age. There are many
old ideas, of course, that are known to be
false: e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is
the still centre of the solar system. It
therefore could be the case that the premise
of this argument is true (that religion is older
than atheism) but that its conclusion is
nevertheless false (that no religion is true).
We need a lot more evidence about religion
(or any other theory) than how old it is before
we can be justified in accepting it as true.
Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.

Moralistic Fallacy
Explanation
The moralistic fallacy is the opposite of the
naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy
moves from descriptions of how things are to
statements of how things ought to be, the
moralistic fallacy does the reverse. The
moralistic fallacy moves from statements
about how things ought to be to statements
about how things are; it assumes that the

world is as it should be. This, sadly, is a

fallacy; sometimes things arent as they
ought to be.
Examples
Have you ever crossed a one-way street
without looking in both directions? If you
have, reasoning that people shouldnt be
driving the wrong way up a one way street so
theres no risk of being run over from that
direction,
then
youve
committed
the
moralistic fallacy. Sometimes things arent as
they ought to be. Sometimes people drive in
directions that they shouldnt. The rules of
the road dont necessarily describe actual
driving practices.