8 ms·

> "The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda." Wai

> "The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda." Wait, pointing out a clear conflict of interest and censorship is being "radically pro-transparency"? I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent, but since when is releasing information about a clear abuse radical in any way whatsoever?

spiffage 15y ago
People often think of the less extreme act that more people can get behind as being more extreme. It's the same reason that the person who risks death to save 100 people is more heroic than the person who risks death to save 2 people.
- kiba 15y ago
  The person who risk deaths to save 100 people is indeed more heroic than the person who save 2 people. Are you saying there's no difference between 1 or 100 people?
  - chc 15y ago
    Heroism is a question of character, not just results. For example, an assassin who gets cold feet when he sees his target's bodyguards is not as heroic as a police officer who takes a bullet to save the assassin's victim, even though both decisions save the person's life. It requires a greater degree of selflessness to value two lives over your own than it does to value a hundred lives over your own. A fairly large number of people would consider sacrificing themselves to save half the world — that many lives lost is such a tremendous tragedy, it almost seems like an obligation. But few people would seriously think about exchanging their life for a stranger's — they'd say sorry, too bad, you got unlucky.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      On the other hand, the level of sacrifice and risk is usually quite great when you consider heroic acts that saved hundreds of people.
  - spiffage 15y ago
    I'm saying that a person taking the same risk to save just 2 people is more heroic, even though peoples' intuition is the opposite. Risking yourself to save 2 people takes guts and a serious commitment to the greater good. Doing the same for 100 people takes guts, but is kind of a no-brainer.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      I think you're on the verge of discovering that a utilitarian philosophy isn't the only way to look at the world. It's just so ingrained in us that it's hard to look beyond it.
      - aidenn0 15y ago
        Really? I find that utilitarianism is not at all the common way of looking at the world. It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version.
        CWuestefeld 15y ago
        It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version. That's true. But the typical formulation for utilitarianism -- "if a trolley is hurtling down the track, certain to kill 5 people ahead of it, is it OK to divert it onto a different track if that will result in killing a single person?" -- is very difficult to talk someone out of. The idea that minimizing the number of deaths overrides any absolute prohibition on taking a person's life is pretty much impossible to overcome. Hence my conclusion that utilitarianism is, or has become, the default mode of reasoning.
Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
Since the dawn of time. Standing up to power is an act which takes courage. Not many stand up to power so it is radical.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Should it be radical? No. Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.
- phillmv 15y ago
  That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    I didn't read his comment as saying that it's a new phenomenon, rather that today's climate makes it true.
  - paganel 15y ago
    > That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous. Well, there are a few, outstanding exceptions. I'm thinking of French philosophers of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), England in most of the 1600s and 1700s (Swift will probably be in jail for at least 30+ years in in this day and age for writing things like "A Modest Proposal") and probably Athens around Pericles' time or the Roman Republic. But, unfortunately, you're of course correct in the great scheme of things.
- edswangren 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can get away with a lot more than you could have in past times when the people in power would have likely just had your head lopped off.
  - justatdotin 15y ago
    so, let's prove it.
streptomycin 15y ago
> I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent That most certainly isn't their mantra.
joelthelion 15y ago
>I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent Is that even their mantra? They didn't release all the diplomatic cables right away, and at least tried to protect the names of some people in these documents.

spiffage 15y ago

People often think of the less extreme act that more people can get behind as being more extreme. It's the same reason that the person who risks death to save 100 people is more heroic than the person who risks death to save 2 people.

kiba 15y ago
The person who risk deaths to save 100 people is indeed more heroic than the person who save 2 people. Are you saying there's no difference between 1 or 100 people?
- chc 15y ago
  Heroism is a question of character, not just results. For example, an assassin who gets cold feet when he sees his target's bodyguards is not as heroic as a police officer who takes a bullet to save the assassin's victim, even though both decisions save the person's life. It requires a greater degree of selflessness to value two lives over your own than it does to value a hundred lives over your own. A fairly large number of people would consider sacrificing themselves to save half the world — that many lives lost is such a tremendous tragedy, it almost seems like an obligation. But few people would seriously think about exchanging their life for a stranger's — they'd say sorry, too bad, you got unlucky.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    On the other hand, the level of sacrifice and risk is usually quite great when you consider heroic acts that saved hundreds of people.
- spiffage 15y ago
  I'm saying that a person taking the same risk to save just 2 people is more heroic, even though peoples' intuition is the opposite. Risking yourself to save 2 people takes guts and a serious commitment to the greater good. Doing the same for 100 people takes guts, but is kind of a no-brainer.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    I think you're on the verge of discovering that a utilitarian philosophy isn't the only way to look at the world. It's just so ingrained in us that it's hard to look beyond it.
    - aidenn0 15y ago
      Really? I find that utilitarianism is not at all the common way of looking at the world. It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version.
      - CWuestefeld 15y ago
        It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version. That's true. But the typical formulation for utilitarianism -- "if a trolley is hurtling down the track, certain to kill 5 people ahead of it, is it OK to divert it onto a different track if that will result in killing a single person?" -- is very difficult to talk someone out of. The idea that minimizing the number of deaths overrides any absolute prohibition on taking a person's life is pretty much impossible to overcome. Hence my conclusion that utilitarianism is, or has become, the default mode of reasoning.

Andrew_Quentin 15y ago

Since the dawn of time. Standing up to power is an act which takes courage. Not many stand up to power so it is radical.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

Should it be radical? No. Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.

phillmv 15y ago
That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I didn't read his comment as saying that it's a new phenomenon, rather that today's climate makes it true.
- paganel 15y ago
  > That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous. Well, there are a few, outstanding exceptions. I'm thinking of French philosophers of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), England in most of the 1600s and 1700s (Swift will probably be in jail for at least 30+ years in in this day and age for writing things like "A Modest Proposal") and probably Athens around Pericles' time or the Roman Republic. But, unfortunately, you're of course correct in the great scheme of things.
edswangren 15y ago
I'm pretty sure you can get away with a lot more than you could have in past times when the people in power would have likely just had your head lopped off.
- justatdotin 15y ago
  so, let's prove it.

streptomycin 15y ago

> I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent That most certainly isn't their mantra.

joelthelion 15y ago

>I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent Is that even their mantra? They didn't release all the diplomatic cables right away, and at least tried to protect the names of some people in these documents.