3 ms·

OK, I'll bite. Your example with the safe is obviously absurd. No one is suggesting that the mere existence of untrue information, in a vacuum, causes harm. Co

OK, I'll bite. Your example with the safe is obviously absurd. No one is suggesting that the mere existence of untrue information, in a vacuum, causes harm. Communicating it to people, presented as true information, is where the harm comes. If you tell someone there are no peanuts in their meal, and they have a peanut allergy, they will eat it because of your false assurance and be harmed. If you tell someone the car dealership down the street always gives amazing deals and gives lifetime warranties for free, but they're selling lemons and fraudulent warranties, your endorsement of their lies can entice more people into getting swindled by them. If you tell someone the car dealership down the street is selling lemons and fraudulent warranties, when in reality they give good deals and honor their warranties faithfully, you are driving away business from them, which harms them financially. "I didn't harm the person with the peanut allergy; the peanuts did!" Bullshit. They ate it in this scenario specifically because they trusted your assurance that it was safe. "I didn't harm the people who got swindled; the car dealership did!" You both harmed them. Your false statements gave them extra legitimacy. Plus, the lies of the car dealership itself caused harm here. "I didn't harm the car dealership; the people who didn't go there did!" Bullshit. You gratuitously introduced false information into a system where it didn't otherwise exist, defaming the car dealership and causing it to lose business that would otherwise have supported it financially. I think that should be sufficient, since you're making an absolute, categorical claim, meaning that any nontrivial counterexample refutes it.

randomdata 4y ago
> If you tell someone there are no peanuts in their meal, and they have a peanut allergy, they will eat it because of your false assurance and be harmed. The harm here is in the act of serving peanuts to someone who is known to have an allergy, not the lie. You can say there are no peanuts and then briskly take back the food before consumption, replacing it with a peanut-free alternative. Nobody would be harmed in that scenario, even with the exact same lie told. The lie is not where the harm is found. > If you tell someone the car dealership down the street always gives amazing deals and gives lifetime warranties for free, but they're selling lemons and fraudulent warranties, your endorsement of their lies can entice more people into getting swindled by them. Slightly closer, but still misses the mark. You are only harming yourself by acting on the lie. With respect to what we are actually talking about, there are four parties: 1. Someone who told a lie. 2. Someone who perpetuated a lie. 3. Someone who caused harm after encountering the lie perpetuated. 4. Someone who was harmed by the person causing harm. If you tell me that the cars at the dealership down the street are free, all you have to do is ask for a test-drive and never come back! And if I tell someone else and if that someone else follows through: Harm will ensue from the theft. But why am I, #2 on the list, who did nothing but repeat what I heard, the one going to court on theft charges? Even if you want to say I am an accessory and should be punished for that, why do I have to take the entire brunt of it? Why do #1 and #3 get off scot free? We used to say ignorance is no excuse, but it seems you are saying that ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse. We used to believe that one should know not to cause harm to others even when there is lie trying to justify it. What happened?

randomdata 4y ago

> If you tell someone there are no peanuts in their meal, and they have a peanut allergy, they will eat it because of your false assurance and be harmed. The harm here is in the act of serving peanuts to someone who is known to have an allergy, not the lie. You can say there are no peanuts and then briskly take back the food before consumption, replacing it with a peanut-free alternative. Nobody would be harmed in that scenario, even with the exact same lie told. The lie is not where the harm is found. > If you tell someone the car dealership down the street always gives amazing deals and gives lifetime warranties for free, but they're selling lemons and fraudulent warranties, your endorsement of their lies can entice more people into getting swindled by them. Slightly closer, but still misses the mark. You are only harming yourself by acting on the lie. With respect to what we are actually talking about, there are four parties: 1. Someone who told a lie. 2. Someone who perpetuated a lie. 3. Someone who caused harm after encountering the lie perpetuated. 4. Someone who was harmed by the person causing harm. If you tell me that the cars at the dealership down the street are free, all you have to do is ask for a test-drive and never come back! And if I tell someone else and if that someone else follows through: Harm will ensue from the theft. But why am I, #2 on the list, who did nothing but repeat what I heard, the one going to court on theft charges? Even if you want to say I am an accessory and should be punished for that, why do I have to take the entire brunt of it? Why do #1 and #3 get off scot free? We used to say ignorance is no excuse, but it seems you are saying that ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse. We used to believe that one should know not to cause harm to others even when there is lie trying to justify it. What happened?