3 ms·
> Yeah, forgive me if I'm too cynical, but Hanlon's razor fails when this sort of thing involves criminal investigations of government employees. I've had this
by jMyles 10y ago
> Yeah, forgive me if I'm too cynical, but Hanlon's razor fails when this sort of thing involves criminal investigations of government employees.
I've had this thought before. Can you think of a general, defensible clause to add to Hanlon's razor to account for this?
- thaumasiotes 10y ago"There is no point in trying to distinguish incompetence from malice when it directly benefits the party committing the error." You need to treat it all as malice.
- jMyles 10y agoThis seems like a very reasonable standard when the power of the state is being wielded.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoIt applies at all times. Given that it's very easy to disguise your behavior as incompetence, it doesn't make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to people who do something that gives them a huge payout. Trying to forgive the incompetent people while punishing the malicious ones just brings you a huge epidemic of mysteriously incompetent people.
- jMyles 10y agoBut what if it's not about punishment, but prevention?
- sverige 10y ago"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by carelessness." Unless that malice is aimed at keeping an individual out of trouble rather than harming others.
- pfortuny 10y agoIt only applies to physical persons, not to groups.
- Bartweiss 10y agoThe usual formulation I hear is: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. But don't rule out malice."