> 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?
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?