Again, TED puts out a presentation worth watching. I always wondered, especially in democratic societies where the majority decides over policies, how the truth or the right answer prevails. Usually politicians and opinion leaders in general are victims to moral hazard by exposing themselves to minority opinions even though they know for sure that they are right or scientifically proven. The welfare state is a prime example. We all want to keep our social conscience and see it as our moral duty to enforce it in public even though we are critical about it. So most people don’t look at the facts or decide by the consequences, they judge by moral. If I put the public to a vote, guarantying them a basic income of 2000$ no matter what, most of them would probably vote for it even though they have doubts or think that it is wrong generally speaking. The same applies for all the other Robin Hood like principals like taxing the banks or bankers, taxing bonuses or in general taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. The German “Left Party” even put this contradiction up in commercials by advertising “wealth for everybody” on one poster and “taxing wealth” on the next for the same election. Well, in this case I can’t really decide which side I want to be on, the wealthy or the wealthy. This shows very well that spoiled countries such as Germany are focused way to much on the redistribution of wealth instead of creating it, but that’s a long story.

Another example is the fear for terrorism. The statistical likelihood of being a victim to terroristic activities in Germany is ZERO. It is more likely that you are getting killed in a car accident or heart attack or even wrong medication which is estimated to account for every second death. Yet, we still spend millions of Euros to increase so called prevention. Now most people know that limiting your hand luggage fluids to 100ml doesn’t help or turning off your phone on the airplane. Still we accept it, even studies show that all the scanning technology has made airports and flights less safe because security is only focused on what comes through their scanner and not on the suspicion of the traveler.

Now, one of the crucial things about democracy is that everybody can have an opinion about anything but should they? I’m not a football fan but I like the quote “Every fan is a national coach” meaning each fan is a football expert and knows it better than the coach or the players, which off course is not true otherwise they would be on the field and not in the stands. For myself I try to base my opinion solely on facts otherwise I don’t have an opinion or as Helmut Schmidt puts it, “I haven’t thought about that”. Meaning I haven’t come to a conclusion yet, I don’t have all the facts or I just have never thought about it, so neither is the case. We usually expect political parties or other organizations in that area to form the public opinion as for the media, institutions and so on. But they all somewhat depend on each other and are therefore stuck in the system, hence an honest politician and or media must be an oxymoron?

The main contradiction here is the gap between Deontological Ethics and Consequentialism. Coming back to the TED presentation by Sam Harris, moral even damaging moral wins over rational. Or as Kurt Tucholsky put it “Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups”