On April 16 2013 05:58 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? If morality is individual, what right does one have to turn in the cheater? His morality is different than yours, after all. But if you turn him in on the grounds that what he did was morally wrong, then you are applying universal morality. Hence, unless you can say that hacking someone's personal email is not wrong then you should turn yourself in as well.
Morality is neither individual nor universal, it is somewhere in between of course. Furthermore, it is never internally consistent across group and individual dynamics; the wrongness of an act and the prerogative to act on witnessing a wrong act are two different things.
On April 16 2013 06:01 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:52 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:49 itsjustatank wrote:On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? This isn't a place for philosophical debate. The law, in whatever jurisdiction the OP resides in, more than likely isolates illegal computer access as more grave than academic dishonesty. Incitement to do these acts and incitement to commit blackmail is also an offense in multiple jurisdictions. You can rationalize it to yourself however you wish. Well, so long as you're cognizant of the fact that you've just whiteknighted "the law", I think we're done here. I mean, come on, do you really think any of us need to tell this dude "hey, you're breaking the law."? Yes, especially when intrinsic to your advocacy is the encouragement to re-do the crime (and, indeed, to commit blackmail).
Well, I'm sure the OP is glad for the reminder.
|
On April 16 2013 05:49 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 05:40 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2013 05:06 itsjustatank wrote:
It is being used in the original sense of the term. You are suggesting he can still do some justice by continuing to do illegal acts simply because of a moral sense of duty. None of you are further saying the responsible thing afterwards, that this person should turn themselves in to the authorities according to the same code of morals. Vigilantism is the white knight to its logical extreme.
No party here should get off scot-free. I'm not sure what sort of strangely rigid conception of morality you are referencing here, but that people have an inconsistent approach to individual morality ought not surprise you, lest you blame the sun for rising. It's clear you have very definite ideas in mind when you use the words "justice", "moral sense of duty", and "same code of morals". On what basis can you claim their universality, and on what basis are we to bend to your judgement in regards to the adherence of these universals? I do not believe individual morality needs to coincide directly along the lines of civically posited "right" action. Prove me wrong. "No Party should get off scot-free" Says who? The code of morals you say we all must adhere to? This isn't a place for philosophical debate. The law, in whatever jurisdiction the OP resides in, more than likely isolates illegal computer access as more grave than academic dishonesty. Incitement to do these acts and incitement to commit blackmail is also an offense in multiple jurisdictions. You can rationalize it to yourself however you wish.
It's only punishable if he's caught. The one that's caught in the OP's scenario is the guy selling answers. The OP can prevent himself from being caught. Perhaps the OP shouldn't be punished; maybe he'll uncover similar acts of treachery in the future. I don't see the the proper authorities taking care of the situation. Perhaps the OP felt forced into the action he chose due to a lack of justice.
There's a lot of things to think about, and I don't feel like rashly "abiding by the law" or imposing some universal moral code is the best way to handle every situation that can arise.
|
EPT
