11 Comments
User's avatar
Michael Kowalik's avatar

NOTE: One cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for causing harm by acting on the information provided by others if the agent in question did not seek to personally verify that acting on the relevant information will not cause harm. For example, a politician who causes harm by acting on the advice of experts cannot claim that he acted in good faith in trusting the experts; he is personally liable for causing harm because he failed to verify that acting on the relevant information would not cause harm and therefore intentionally acted with indifference to the possibility of harm. Moreover, an agent who affirms and propagates unverified information does so with the intent of propagating it even if it is malicious or false information.

Expand full comment
Jannik Lindquist's avatar

"when we engage in argument we must look to the weight of reason rather than authority. Indeed, students who are keen to learn often find the authority of those who claim to be teachers to be an obstacle, for they cease to apply their own judgement and regard as definitive the solution offered by the mentor of whom they approve. I myself tend to disapprove of the alleged practice of the Pythagoreans: the story goes that if they were maintaining some position in argument, and were asked why, they would reply 'The master said so', the master being Pythagoras. Prior judgement exercised such sway that authority prevailed even when unsupported by reason".

- Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, 1.10

Expand full comment
C. P. Colum's avatar

Fascinating. I wasn't aware of the Latin term, thank you.

Expand full comment
Unacceptable Fringe Minority's avatar

2020 - A giant Milgram / Stanford Prison experiment writ large . . . in which my worst fears about my fellow men were confirmed.

Expand full comment
Rob Dubya's avatar

Wanting the compliant non thinkers dead is a theory that I have pondered on for a long time. But I can't get my head around the reasoning to this position. Ultimately, these psychos want total power and ultimate control, so why would they want the difficult ones left. Eugenicists don't really want to rid the world of non thinkers to make a more intelligent race, they want just enough non thinking, brain mushed, compliant automatons that don't cost too much to keep alive and useful in order to service those that they actually see as the master race....themselves. And as Carlin said "they are a big club, but you ain't in it". Thanks for peice, I appreciated it.

Expand full comment
Jane's avatar

I had this same thought, but not expressed as smartly or thoroughly as you: “Huh. Maybe they want the stupid ones dead…..makes sense.” (Mine said in Homer Simpson voice for some reason). Lately I don’t care who they want dead because I’ve found as long as I keep my inner mind, home, and personal relationships harmonious (that’s the key for me- balanced, positively focused energy, like beautiful music) I do not get sick.

Expand full comment
PERSISTENT OBJECTOR to new IHR's avatar

Your last paragraph (the existential reason for not trusting experts) really should be food for thought for a lot of people.

Expand full comment
Jannik Lindquist's avatar

Hahaha :-) The last example is extra brilliant!

Expand full comment
John's avatar

This is the level of thought once taught at the late elementary or middle school levels in western schools. Now, it's confusing to too many post graduate adults.

We've come a long way, in the wrong direction.

Expand full comment
Leanne C's avatar

Thanks for this excellent and timely reminder ….

Expand full comment
Rick Larson's avatar

Too complicated for us gardeners. I'd rather just boil it all down to there are too many varying variables and people with letters behind their names are deluding themselves, as well as causing harm to others.

But since its legal no big deal.

The F factor I like, F-them.

Expand full comment