The Fallacy of Relative Deprivation

[TAW122]

This is a common argument that pro-lifers like to use to dismiss, invalidate, or otherwise minimize any shortcomings and misfortunes that others have suffered. The reason that it is called the "fallacy of relative deprivation" is because it states that there are worse problems (or shortcomings and misfortunes) so the current problem being presented is being ignored and made to be trivial. I once had a reply to another thread explaining this fallacy as well as giving an example of where the fallacy is found.

Anyways, perhaps most of us on this forum already knows this, but I figured I make a thread just to highlight that this is just another sly argument that pro-lifers like to use to dismiss, invalidate, and/or minimize our struggles only to feel superior about themselves. I believe that all problems are valid and just because there are worse problems out there, does not imply that our problems are less valid.

 

[jodes2]

Yeah all problems should be treated with respect

 

[Forever Sleep]

I hate this one SO much and I think EVERYONE does it. I even find myself ALMOST doing it sometimes. It tends to be with people who do it to me- so, it's in part a sort of revenge tactic but it's still shitty- so- normally- I stop myself before actually saying it. I utterly HATE the phrase 'at least' or, 'you're so lucky' because it's rarely entirely true. 'At least' tends to be in response to something you are moaning about and it usually involves a comparison with them- 'at least your life is better than mine' type thing- which may well be true but how does that help? It's like- thanks- so now I have guilt as well.

'You're so lucky' doesn't always have that much to do with luck either- 'you're so lucky you have a good job/a partner/a nice home/a suicide method!' Sure- luck comes into it but so does a lot of hard work, effort and risk. It's not like we find any of those things under a rainbow! Maybe we do all have different levels of difficulties to overcome in order to achieve things but I don't know of many people who just breeze through life.

I actually find that one just as dismissive as 'at least'. It's just that 'at least' tends to be dismissive of problems whereas 'you're so lucky' tends to dismiss people's efforts, achievements and risks.

 

[FuneralCry]

I do think that it's certainly very insensitive to invalidate the suffering of others, and I bet that the people who dismiss others problems would hate it if someone did that to them. And anyway, no matter what somebody else will always have it worse, there is simply no limit as to how much we can suffer as long as we stay here, so according to those pro lifers barely anyone's suffering is worth acknowledging.

 

[TAW122]

Yeah all problems should be treated with respect

Yes, and also acknowledged as valid too.

I hate this one SO much and I think EVERYONE does it. I even find myself ALMOST doing it sometimes. It tends to be with people who do it to me- so, it's in part a sort of revenge tactic but it's still shitty- so- normally- I stop myself before actually saying it. I utterly HATE the phrase 'at least' or, 'you're so lucky' because it's rarely entirely true. 'At least' tends to be in response to something you are moaning about and it usually involves a comparison with them- 'at least your life is better than mine' type thing- which may well be true but how does that help? It's like- thanks- so now I have guilt as well.

'You're so lucky' doesn't always have that much to do with luck either- 'you're so lucky you have a good job/a partner/a nice home/a suicide method!' Sure- luck comes into it but so does a lot of hard work, effort and risk. It's not like we find any of those things under a rainbow! Maybe we do all have different levels of difficulties to overcome in order to achieve things but I don't know of many people who just breeze through life.

I actually find that one just as dismissive as 'at least'. It's just that 'at least' tends to be dismissive of problems whereas 'you're so lucky' tends to dismiss people's efforts, achievements and risks.

I like your perspective on it, and yes, the 'luck' line, while it does play a factor, one's efforts, dedication, and risks that one takes to pursue an endeavor are the main factors. In other situations, yes, luck is a big factor, but it would (almost) never be the only factor.

I do think that it's certainly very insensitive to invalidate the suffering of others, and I bet that the people who dismiss others problems would hate it if someone did that to them. And anyway, no matter what somebody else will always have it worse, there is simply no limit as to how much we can suffer as long as we stay here, so according to those pro lifers barely anyone's suffering is worth acknowledging.

True, and yeah those pro-lifers only know suffering and rarely think about others' suffering.

 

[borderline-feline]

It's textbook toxic positivity. No one ever really turns it around on them unfortunately. If I'm not allowed to be upset because there are people who have it worse, then they're not allowed to be happy because there are people who have it better.

 

[TAW122]

Good example @borderline-feline, that's another way to turn it around onto pro-lifers. Of course, in practice, they wouldn't admit it nor see it that way, but as far as logic is concerned, that's true.