Taking Napoleon's Word For It

A Pandemic Musing

It is important, when we are thrashing out issues and chewing over matters and so forth, to avoid the infamous Ad Hominem Fallacy. This is the one where you assess an argument not on its merits, but on the identity of the person making it. So, for example, if Scott Cam told you that KFC’s Zinger Stacker burger was a spicy taste sensation, you should not dismiss the accuracy of the observation just because it’s Scott Cam making it, no matter how much it might sting to admit that Scott Cam is right about something.

However, that doesn’t mean it’s always wise to completely disregard the identity of the person making the argument. For example, if you were a British citizen in the early 1800s and Napoleon Bonaparte told you that the only way for the United Kingdom to achieve prosperity was the immediate disbanding of the British Navy, you should definitely consider the possibility that he’s right, but you might also want to seek a second opinion, or to do a bit of your own research, before getting on board with his plan. Because although you don’t want to fall victim to the temptations of ad hominem, you must also admit that Napoleon might have a reason for advancing his hypothesis beyond his sincere desire to see Britain thrive.

So don’t assume anyone is wrong, or lying, purely because of who they are: but do question and be especially sceptical of those whose recommendations for everyone else just happen to dovetail perfectly with their own self-interest.

Like, for example, if there were a pandemic which had led to long, harsh, gruelling lockdowns, and some people, hypothetically, were saying that long, harsh, gruelling lockdowns needed to be longer, and harsher, and more gruelling, because the disease in question was such a terrifyingly powerful enemy that living normally in a world where it existed was tantamount to mass suicide…

And if some of those people were, say, journalists working for organisations whose business model depends on people clicking as many articles as possible, or listening to as many broadcasts as possible, or watching the TV news as much as possible - something people are far more likely to do if they are frightened of what might be about to happen to them and need to obsessively keep checking the news to see what’s happening…

And if some of those people were, say, politicians who had seen their popularity soar due to harsh lockdown measures, and who knew that they would be risking their popularity if they changed strategies…

And if some of those people were, say, senior members of the police force whose careers were dedicated to amassing greater and more extensive powers for the police, and whose status and influence depended on them doing so…

And if some of those people were, say, public commentators who had seen a huge rise in their profile, fame and employment opportunities due to their ominous warnings in the media, who knew that if lockdowns ended and life returned to normal they would find themselves less prominent, less in demand by TV and radio, less able to leverage their fame for personal enrichment - if in fact some of those were employees of organisations whose revenue had increased by tens of millions during the pandemic with near-certainty that it would drop similarly once it was over…

If all those people were included in the cohort whose pronouncements, projections and policy prescriptions were causing the heightening in public alarm…

I’m just saying: maybe don’t take Napoleon’s word for it that he’s got your best interests at heart.