Correlation and causation are two concepts in logic that are interconnected, but it is important to distinguish them clearly. Correlation indicates the existence of a certain connection between two phenomena, while causation implies that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between them. In other words, the fact that two phenomena occur together, or that one occurs after the other, is not in itself sufficient evidence that one is the cause of the other.

It is precisely this mistaken assumption that underlies one of the most common logical fallacies in everyday reasoning. Its consequences are usually not particularly significant when they concern trivial situations from everyday life. However, the problem becomes much more serious when such a way of reasoning becomes part of the thinking of a larger group of people or an entire community, that is, when it becomes deeply rooted in collective consciousness. At that point, an individual logical error ceases to be merely an error in reasoning and can become the basis for the formation of stereotypes, social attitudes and value judgments.

In logic, this fallacy most commonly appears in two basic forms:

  1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”) – a fallacy in which it is assumed that event A caused event B simply because A occurred before B.
  2. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“With this, therefore because of this”) – a fallacy in which it is assumed that one phenomenon is the cause of another simply because both phenomena occur at the same time or are connected to one another.

Examples of these logical fallacies can be found almost everywhere, but one is particularly interesting in the context of Serbian society and mentality: the belief that poverty in itself produces or implies good character. It is a deeply rooted stereotype, but also a kind of traditional norm present not only in Serbia but across the broader Balkan cultural space. Poverty is often not viewed merely as an economic condition; certain moral qualities are attributed to it. In other words, poverty is moralized. A poor person is traditionally portrayed as more modest, more honest and more honorable, while wealth is often associated with arrogance, greed and moral corruption.

Such a pattern of thinking has its historical and cultural roots. In epic and folk traditions, the wealthy person is often portrayed as arrogant and unjust, while the poor person is idealized as “honorable and honest.” Christian, and particularly Orthodox Christian, cultural heritage has further reinforced certain ideas about modesty, self-denial and material poverty as moral values. A similar pattern can also be recognized in numerous folk sayings and proverbs that associate poverty with honor, honesty and a person’s moral worth. The problem arises when a causal conclusion is drawn from such a cultural association: that poverty produces good character, or that a person is morally better because they are poor. Correlation between certain life circumstances and certain value patterns, even when it exists, does not constitute proof of a cause-and-effect relationship. Poverty can influence a person’s behavior and life choices, just as certain social circumstances can influence their system of values, but it does not follow from this that poverty itself creates honesty, honor or morality.

It is precisely in this substitution of correlation for causation that one of the most persistent misconceptions about the relationship between material status and character arises. A person’s moral worth cannot reliably be derived from their financial situation, just as their character cannot automatically be assessed on the basis of how much they possess or how little they have.

This is particularly deeply rooted in rural environments which, as a matter of fact, because of frequent deprivation and poverty, produced an above-average number of military personnel. The military provided a sense of economic security and a life free from the most severe forms of deprivation. In Serbian stereotypes, a soldier or officer is often portrayed as someone who comes from the countryside, from severe deprivation and poverty, while at the same time being someone who possesses a high level of morality and honor. At the same time, material deprivation is associated with the lives of monks and part of the clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and this group is therefore also automatically attributed qualities of moral character and honorable behavior.

It is precisely on the basis of such stereotypes that most contemporary surveys show that the Army and the Church are perceived as the most respected institutions in Serbia, because modest, moral and honorable conduct is seen as being at their foundation. Political authorities and owners of capital, on the other hand, are almost always associated with negative attitudes because they are regarded as immoral, arrogant and dishonorable. This dichotomy, or black-and-white understanding of reality, harms above all the very people who produce it, because it makes them vulnerable to different kinds of abuse that can arise as a consequence of this obvious logical error, which over time has become a social norm in Serbia. A population can be manipulated more easily and exploited more easily if it is continuously kept in deprivation or poor financial circumstances. At the same time, individuals can enrich themselves at the expense of a population that “moralizes poverty.”

“HAPPY PEOPLE” AND THE MORALIZATION OF POVERTY

The most vivid and perhaps the most tangible example of the moralization of poverty is the television series “Srećni ljudi,” in which the stereotype from Serbian society described above is presented in the most obvious way. In its own way, this television series also illustrates the logical fallacy in which correlation leads to causation. The story is set in the 1990s, when Serbia was under international sanctions because of its support for and involvement in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The wars and suffering in those countries are not mentioned; instead, there is only talk of some kind of “sanctions” and “embargo” imposed on Serbia, without any explanation of why those sanctions were imposed.

The main characters in the series, the Golubović family, find themselves in severe deprivation and poverty caused by the “sanctions,” but the characters manage to “preserve their honesty” in a society that is becoming increasingly “dishonest.” The message conveyed to the audience by the screenwriters and director through the main characters is based on the stereotype of moral and honorable poverty, which is contrasted with some sinister embargo and sanctions, but also with the immoral rich people in their surroundings.

Although the series contains many comic moments which have, as a matter of fact, entered the history of Serbian cinematography, a deeper analysis reveals many paradoxical situations and frustrations within Serbian society that society itself does not know how to resolve, so it attempts to idealize them or at least make jokes at its own expense.

A deeper analysis of the characters in the series reveals the essence of the logical fallacy that links correlation and causation, namely the assumption that poverty and deprivation automatically entail moral behavior, and that wealth is in itself fundamentally immoral.

The head of the family, Aranđel Golubović, after a long working life, faces major challenges in retirement, which naturally include poverty. The series sends the message that Aranđel is an honorable and moral man who, despite the moral decline of society, remains an example of honor. However, if his character is analyzed a little more closely, Aranđel is far from the “honor and honesty” for which the series advocates. He built a house with countless defects which, according to Ostojić’s lawsuits, was actually very poorly constructed. He is relatively uninterested in his wife Ristana, while being ambivalent toward his son Vukašin and daughter-in-law Lola. He almost always blames others for his misfortunes: sometimes the sanctions are to blame, sometimes inflation, sometimes the police, and sometimes society as a whole. However, Aranđel almost never takes responsibility for his own actions.

His main opponent in the series, Ostojić, although he himself also lives in deprivation, is likewise far from being a “good character.” His constant lawsuits against Aranđel, spying on the Golubović family and endless search for witnesses for his lawsuits show that, despite the deprivation in which he lives, Ostojić is far from the moral and honorable behavior he claims to advocate. Although his manipulations are minor, Ostojić morally justifies them to himself, thereby further illustrating the logical fallacy itself, namely the attempt to present poverty as the cause of moral and honorable behavior.

Poverty and deprivation do not prevent Ostojić from manipulating or provoking others, thereby directly challenging the central premise of the television series. Aranđel does the same, which shows that poverty did not prevent him either from building a house with countless defects that lead to his constant disputes with Ostojić.

Poverty does not prevent Vukašin from cheating on his wife Lola, while Lola’s delayed salary and low pay do not prevent her from engaging in endless arguments with Riska, during which she uses Riska’s “last eggs” for her face mask. Despite her poverty, Lola Golubović displays pronounced selfishness and self-centeredness, placing herself above the well-being of her family. Ristana Golubović’s confinement to domestic work and everyday deprivation do not prevent her from turning her son against her daughter-in-law, nor from demonizing her daughter-in-law throughout the series.

Vukašin and Lola’s daughter, Đurđina Golubović, although she spends her youth in financially unfavorable circumstances, nevertheless enters into a relationship with a married man who does not divorce during the course of their extramarital relationship, while she continuously “tolerates” the fact that Dr Popac has a daughter and remains married to Marina throughout. Most of the other characters in the series likewise undermine the logical assumption of a causal relationship between poverty and moral behavior.

Head nurse Antonija, although she herself claims to be “miserably paid,” very often violates both the rights of the patients under her care and the rights of the workers she supervises. Although her character is portrayed in a highly comic manner, head nurse Antonija almost always behaves unprofessionally toward patients, even frequently slapping them, thereby violating healthcare protocols and rules. Her behavior toward the other nurses, whom she supervises as head nurse, could today easily be characterized as workplace bullying and a violation of employees’ rights. If the comic quality of her actions is removed, her “miserable salary” does not prevent her at all from violating the rights of patients and the nurses she supervises.

Paradoxically, the character of Malina Vojvodić, whom the series seeks to portray as part of the “new elite” that “became rich overnight” and who, according to the screenwriters and directors, is essentially a negative character, is one of the few characters in whom, after deeper analysis, the negative traits that the authors of the series seek to attribute to her cannot really be found. Malina Vojvodić does not live in poverty, but she is neither a villain nor an immoral person. She simply fundamentally departs from the Balkan and Serbian stereotype according to which a woman must be completely subordinate to a man, like Riska, or partially subordinate, like Lola Golubović. Malina Vojvodić also undermines the logical fallacy and stereotype on which the series is, among other things, based. Malina simply wants to protect herself in a society in which her wealth is simultaneously a kind of judgment on her character.

In conclusion, the series itself undermines the stereotype on which it is partly based and, entirely unintentionally, calls into question the deeply rooted norm in Serbian tradition and culture that poverty causes honor and honesty, while wealth causes immorality and crime. Although these phenomena can be correlated to a certain degree, that is, there may be some connection between them, they are not necessarily in a clear cause-and-effect relationship. This logical fallacy represents the second type, cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this”), reasoning according to which it is assumed that poverty automatically comes with completely moral and honorable behavior.

LOGICAL FALLACIES, WAR CRIMINALS AND CRIMINALS

The attitude of contemporary Serbian society toward Ratko Mladić, a general of the Army of Republika Srpska and a person finally convicted of war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is based on the same logical fallacy. Because Ratko Mladić was born and raised in poverty, he is incapable of immoral behavior; therefore, he is an honorable and moral soldier who committed no crimes but merely “defended” Serbs during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Here, however, we are dealing with the first type of the same logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”). In this fallacy, it is assumed that event A caused event B simply because A occurred before B.

Ratko Mladić was born in the village of Božinovići, near the Herzegovinian municipality of Kalinovik. He grew up without a father and spent his childhood and early youth in deprivation and poverty. After primary school, he went to Sarajevo, where he worked for a time as a metalworker before beginning his military education and career in the Yugoslav People’s Army. He advanced relatively quickly through the JNA and reached the breakup of Yugoslavia with the rank of major general. There is extensive documentation describing him as a disciplined and loyal officer, as well as numerous testimonies from his superiors and subordinates portraying him as an honorable, moral and honest soldier. It is precisely the assumed correlation between a childhood and youth spent in poverty and the image of an “honorable and moral soldier” that forms the basis of the logical fallacy, because causation, that is, a cause-and-effect relationship, is inferred from a connection where it has not been established.

The fact that someone was poor and a disciplined soldier does not mean that this person cannot be responsible for genocide and other war crimes. Although hundreds of different studies have been conducted, no single “cause of all causes” has yet been found, that is, no explanation that could precisely show what makes a person capable of committing the most serious crimes. There are numerous theories dealing with a lack of empathy, psychopathy and sociopathy, as well as different biological and social factors, but none of them on its own provides a complete and unified explanation of why people commit the gravest crimes.

The only thing that can be concluded with certainty, however simple it may sound, is that people who commit genocide are people capable of committing genocide. This breaks down the assumed cause-and-effect relationship between poverty, discipline or any other individual trait and a person’s moral character. In other words, A does not automatically produce B simply because it precedes it or because there is some connection between them. The existence of one trait is not proof that a particular behavior will necessarily follow from it.

The famous author Hannah Arendt introduced the term “banality of evil” into the study of war crimes, using it to describe the phenomenon whereby the most horrific crimes can be committed by entirely ordinary people who do not think about the consequences of their actions but merely “follow orders.” However, Arendt explains who these people are, but not why they decide to act in such ways. Therefore, even her theory of the “average Eichmann” and the “banality of evil” does not fully explain the causes that lead to catastrophic consequences.

Contemporary Serbian society, as well as stereotypes and norms often present among members of the Serbian people, are based in part on one ordinary logical fallacy, namely the confusion of the concepts of correlation and causation. From everyday life and television series to the most serious political decisions, a large number of people in Serbia do not understand the most basic distinction between correlation and causation and attribute a cause-and-effect relationship where only a certain correlation exists.

A similar logical fallacy, once again involving a misunderstanding of the relationship between correlation and causation, can also be observed in attitudes toward Naser Orić, the former commander of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Srebrenica. Although Orić was finally acquitted of charges of war crimes committed against Serbian civilians in villages around Srebrenica, a large part of the public in Serbia and Republika Srpska considers him a war criminal, among other things because of his later life.

Naser Orić has been prosecuted several times for illegal possession of weapons and the criminal offenses of extortion and blackmail, and he was finally convicted of unlawful possession of weapons. There are also a large number of comments on social media in which citizens and business owners from Sarajevo complain that Naser Orić engages in “racketeering” of restaurant owners, that is, that through threats and extortion he unlawfully takes money from Sarajevo restaurateurs and business owners. However, such allegations in themselves are not sufficient to establish that Orić actually engages in such unlawful activities unless there are final court judgments or other reliable evidence supporting them.

If we were to accept this allegation as true, while there are also court decisions confirming part of the claims concerning his criminal offenses, we could wrongly reach the conclusion that Naser Orić was probably also a war criminal simply because he is today associated with criminal activities. Once again, we arrive at the same logical fallacy as in the case of Ratko Mladić: post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”). From the fact that Orić has today been convicted of or associated with criminal activities, it cannot be concluded that he was therefore a war criminal during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Once again, causation is introduced where only a possible correlation exists.

It is true that certain degrees of correlation may exist between different forms of crime, just as it is possible to speak of a certain connection between poverty and particular patterns of behavior. However, correlation itself does not constitute proof of causation, that is, of a cause-and-effect relationship.

Poverty and deprivation do not guarantee that a person will have good and moral character, just as wealth does not automatically mean that a person is bad or immoral. In the same way, the fact that someone breaks the law, engages in racketeering or extortion does not mean that they also committed war crimes or that they are responsible for them on the basis of command responsibility.

Ratko Mladić is a war criminal because a final judicial proceeding established his responsibility for a series of war crimes and other criminal offenses, including persecution, deportation, terrorizing the civilian population of Sarajevo, extermination and the genocide in Srebrenica. The fact that Mladić spent part of his life in poverty, that he was a disciplined soldier during his service in the JNA, or that some of his subordinates and superiors described him as an honorable and moral man does not constitute evidence that he is not responsible for the crimes for which he was finally convicted.

Likewise, the fact that Naser Orić was responsible for extortion, blackmail or unlawful possession of weapons does not mean that he was also responsible for war crimes committed in the villages around Srebrenica. Responsibility for war crimes cannot be inferred from later criminal behavior, just as a person’s character cannot be inferred solely from their material status. In all these cases, it is necessary to distinguish correlation from causation and proven facts from subsequently constructed parallels and speculative narratives.

THE MORALIZATION OF POVERTY AND THE PRODUCTION OF SOCIAL DELUSIONS

In a broader context, poverty does not prevent people from doing bad things to others, including the most horrific acts. A person living in deprivation can still be a fraudster, profiteer, thief or murderer, while a person who was born into and lives in wealth does not necessarily have bad character; on the contrary, they can be highly humane and empathetic. A person who engages in crime or extortion does not have to be a war criminal because of it, but at the same time their criminal behavior cannot be evidence of honorable and moral character. However, dishonorable and immoral behavior in itself does not make an individual a war criminal either. Responsibility for war crimes is established on the basis of evidence concerning their commission, participation in the organization of crimes, command responsibility and other concrete circumstances determined by a court in judicial proceedings.

Logical fallacies and the moralization of a life of poverty have brought part of Serbian society almost to a state of collective delusion, in which a person finally convicted of war crimes can be proclaimed a hero and defender of the Serbian people solely on the basis of the fact that he spent his pre-war life in poverty or was a disciplined soldier. Such reasoning represents a dangerous substitution of arguments: instead of judging someone’s actions on the basis of facts and evidence, moral character is derived from origin, social status or professional biography. In the long term, such a state of affairs can create serious problems for Serbian society, because there will always be someone willing to manipulate ignorance and someone willing to profit from that ignorance, regardless of how many citizens protest “against the system.”

If consciousness in Serbia does not change, it is difficult to expect the system to change either. The system may ultimately produce another Ratko Mladić, but also a political environment in which such a person, even after a final conviction for the gravest war crimes, would be given a state funeral with the highest state and military honors. Ratko Mladić exists not only in history, but also in part of the collective consciousness of Serbian society. This is precisely why the problem does not lie only in the individual, but in the social patterns that make it possible for a criminal to be viewed through the prism of poverty, military discipline, national affiliation or supposed honor. Without changing such a consciousness, it is difficult to change the system that emerges from it.