3 ms·
The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud. It seems you need
by _carl_jung 7y ago
The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud.
It seems you need these criteria:
1. The fraud knows they are duping the subject.
2. The subject truly believes the fraud is real.
In the magician example, 2 does not hold.
In the religion example, 1 does not hold.
Of course, there are _some_ frauds in religious circles. But I don't think the average church minister is rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the next donation.
- criley2 7y ago>The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud. So as long as the psychic actually believes they are psychic, it's 100% not fraudulent. Got it. It can't be fraud if your intentions are good, apparently.
- croon 7y ago> It can't be fraud if your intentions are good, apparently. I'd love for any lawyer to chime in, but I believe that's the case, yes. I believe it's similarly not murder if you can prove it wasn't your intent, making it manslaughter or other classifications. Huge IANAL disclaimer.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoLet's say people have religious experiences, where they sense or feel something that's as real to them as what you see in front of your face. I have. Are they supposed to ignore that, not dig into it, and pretend it didn't happen? That's as irrational as asking you to believe it without such an experience.
- _carl_jung 7y ago> So as long as the psychic actually believes they are psychic Exactly.
- v64 7y agoI can't speak for other legal systems, but in the United States, fraud is defined as intentional deception. You may view their actions as fraudulent, but without earnest intent to deceive, it doesn't qualify as the crime of fraud.