I would definitely see an issue with a society which told people than when considering how to impact the world, "leave it to people who are smarter than you."
At the same time, I think that when dealing with such complex issues that one doesn't have the time or intelligence to satisfyingly understand, to responsibly defer to a relative expert with similar values to you, seems safer.
And I don't think this is a unique problem to fanaticism, though dealing with infinity always complicates things. Incorporating stochastic dominance into one's moral framework can also introduce major confusion. Furthermore, for people less inclined towards hard totalist utilitarianism (valuing community and the present, holding the person-affecting view, opposing exploitation regardless of suffering caused, etc.) it can also be very hard to find the initiatives that optimize based on a balance of different values.
Thanks for responding!
I would definitely see an issue with a society which told people than when considering how to impact the world, "leave it to people who are smarter than you."
At the same time, I think that when dealing with such complex issues that one doesn't have the time or intelligence to satisfyingly understand, to responsibly defer to a relative expert with similar values to you, seems safer.
And I don't think this is a unique problem to fanaticism, though dealing with infinity always complicates things. Incorporating stochastic dominance into one's moral framework can also introduce major confusion. Furthermore, for people less inclined towards hard totalist utilitarianism (valuing community and the present, holding the person-affecting view, opposing exploitation regardless of suffering caused, etc.) it can also be very hard to find the initiatives that optimize based on a balance of different values.