5 ms·

This is probably going to cost me karma, but here goes: "Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did" So he has no responsibility for the decisio

This is probably going to cost me karma, but here goes: "Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did" So he has no responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including the final one? Yes, MIT's actions may have had influence. Or they may have hastened the inevitable - a person who makes this choice is not untroubled to begin with, and it's never about just one thing. Ultimately, it was his choice in the end. The responsibility is his.

JonFish85 13y ago
Couldn't agree more. MIT had no obligation, nevermind "a moral imperative" to do anything to try to make him more comfortable with legal procedings. It's sad that he felt that his only way out was via suicide, I can certainly sympathize with the trapped feeling. But let's not blame MIT for this. It's not their job to analyze just how upset/sad/depressed someone is going to be about a legal case, and act accordingly.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  We have no obligation to not feel bad feelings, to not say bad words about MIT. That's what we're going to do. Organizations have no conscience and no "human rights". Kicking an organization for bad judgement is cool.
jlgreco 13y ago
Consider the attitudes we have towards schoolyard or internet bullies when their victims commit suicide. If the people weev harassed had committed suicide, what would you hesitate to blame weev?
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  Well, yes. Again - the mentality that leads to suicide does not develop in isolation. It is not "weev has picked on me and I am a loser and have no choice or other way out". That may be back-breaking straw, but it's not the underlying issue. There are a host of contributing factors that can add up to this - so while it's great when we have a face to assign to The Bad Guy in these cases, and it's a perfectly natural response... it's seldom the correct one.
- mithaler 13y ago
  In the hypothetical you raise, Weev is at best an unprovoked aggressor, and at worst a bully who harasses people because he can. In contrast, MIT can reasonably claim that Swartz was the aggressor against them; he was the one who sneaked into a network closet to "liberate" JSTOR.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    We can debate whether or not MIT is a bully, though I have no interest in doing so. It seems painfully clear to me. What I think is not debatable, unless you think humans are emotionless automatons who cannot be influenced by the treatment of others (a viewpoint seemingly being espoused by several here), is that bullies can be held partially morally^ accountable for the suicides of their victims. ^ I am not saying legally accountable.
    - mithaler 13y ago
      I do not believe MIT was a bully. A bully is someone who harms others because they can; MIT was responding, I believe reasonably, to a person breaking into their network closet and violating their terms of access. That that person happened to be at risk of suicide was tragic, but not their fault; I can't even think of a way the legal system would be able to reasonably take that into account, nor can I imagine how a system of morality can indemnify a person's actions because they happen to be suicidal. You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I'll give you that MIT was less the bully... and more the parent standing idly by enjoying the show. As far as I am concerned, that is an equivalent position. > You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree. That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing in the slightest. If you think that is what this discussion is about, then I have to wonder what exactly you have been reading.
ddod 13y ago
I'm wondering if you would say the same about Bradley Manning were he to commit suicide. I definitely see the point you're making, and I've made it in the past myself with similar issues, but when your world has crumpled down around you and there's no escape, and people are actively trying to lock you in a cell for as long as they can, I don't think it necessarily requires a very troubled mind to weigh your options there. His death shouldn't be seen so much as a cause and effect so much as a wake up call that acting in the way MIT, JSTOR, and the government did isn't right and is hurting people in ways we don't necessarily pay attention to or care about when it's just some small news item about a trial.
coldtea 13y ago
>So he has no responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including the final one? No, he has the same responsibility a raped woman has. She could opt to NOT dress provacately, after all. /s
- Uhhrrr 13y ago
  Comparing the amount of agency one has while committing suicide with the amount one has while being raped is inflammatory and completely ridiculous.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Really? Did you you ask his psychiatrist and he told you what his, (a self admitted depressive's) "amount of agency" was at the prospect of being thrown in jail and paying a hefty fine (plus legal expenses)? This playing both sides (MIT/Aaron) is just another way of "blaming the victim". And I don't think a person commiting suicide is less serious to rape.
chaostheory 13y ago
They deserve blame for initiating the destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) and not doing anything to stop it like JSTOR did. Yes not everyone commits suicide when their life is in ruins, but a lot of people do. Even if Aaron was still alive, the things MIT did would be no less wrong, so let's bring the focus back to that.
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  I agree that the things MIT did were wrong no matter the outcome. So as we do bring focus on back to it, I only ask that we do so without clouding the issue by branding them as murderers for their wrong actions.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    I have no problems with not calling MIT "murderers". It's just that your post sounds like yet another blame the victim argument and it distracts people from the main problem of MIT screwing up and not being responsible about it. They are doing everything they can to try to deflect blame and hide wrongdoing. Their findings report was just a CYA document released on a day that's guaranteed to make it forgotten. It also doesn't help that they're blocking FOIA requests. MIT could have stopped of all this by doing what JSTOR did.
a3_nm 13y ago
As a general remark, the statement "If A had done X then Y would not have happened." is not sufficient to prove that A's doing X is responsible for Y. Various counterexamples: - If the murderer's mother had refused to have sex with the murderer's father, the victim would be alive today. - If the train driver had had a sudden impulse to stop his train, the suicide could not have taken place. - If he had subscribed to the protection racket scheme, his family would not have been harmed. Responsibility is finer than causality.
ajb 13y ago
The following inference: IF A is responsible for X THEN B is not responsible for X is false, in general. Responsibility does not mutually exclude. It is often arranged that responsibilities do not overlap, but this is an organisational expediency. It is not a moral principle. So saying "the responsibility was his" as if that somehow means that no-one else can have any responsibility is wrong.

JonFish85 13y ago

Couldn't agree more. MIT had no obligation, nevermind "a moral imperative" to do anything to try to make him more comfortable with legal procedings. It's sad that he felt that his only way out was via suicide, I can certainly sympathize with the trapped feeling. But let's not blame MIT for this. It's not their job to analyze just how upset/sad/depressed someone is going to be about a legal case, and act accordingly.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
We have no obligation to not feel bad feelings, to not say bad words about MIT. That's what we're going to do. Organizations have no conscience and no "human rights". Kicking an organization for bad judgement is cool.

jlgreco 13y ago

Consider the attitudes we have towards schoolyard or internet bullies when their victims commit suicide. If the people weev harassed had committed suicide, what would you hesitate to blame weev?

GrinningFool 13y ago
Well, yes. Again - the mentality that leads to suicide does not develop in isolation. It is not "weev has picked on me and I am a loser and have no choice or other way out". That may be back-breaking straw, but it's not the underlying issue. There are a host of contributing factors that can add up to this - so while it's great when we have a face to assign to The Bad Guy in these cases, and it's a perfectly natural response... it's seldom the correct one.
mithaler 13y ago
In the hypothetical you raise, Weev is at best an unprovoked aggressor, and at worst a bully who harasses people because he can. In contrast, MIT can reasonably claim that Swartz was the aggressor against them; he was the one who sneaked into a network closet to "liberate" JSTOR.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  We can debate whether or not MIT is a bully, though I have no interest in doing so. It seems painfully clear to me. What I think is not debatable, unless you think humans are emotionless automatons who cannot be influenced by the treatment of others (a viewpoint seemingly being espoused by several here), is that bullies can be held partially morally^ accountable for the suicides of their victims. ^ I am not saying legally accountable.
  - mithaler 13y ago
    I do not believe MIT was a bully. A bully is someone who harms others because they can; MIT was responding, I believe reasonably, to a person breaking into their network closet and violating their terms of access. That that person happened to be at risk of suicide was tragic, but not their fault; I can't even think of a way the legal system would be able to reasonably take that into account, nor can I imagine how a system of morality can indemnify a person's actions because they happen to be suicidal. You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I'll give you that MIT was less the bully... and more the parent standing idly by enjoying the show. As far as I am concerned, that is an equivalent position. > You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree. That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing in the slightest. If you think that is what this discussion is about, then I have to wonder what exactly you have been reading.

ddod 13y ago

I'm wondering if you would say the same about Bradley Manning were he to commit suicide. I definitely see the point you're making, and I've made it in the past myself with similar issues, but when your world has crumpled down around you and there's no escape, and people are actively trying to lock you in a cell for as long as they can, I don't think it necessarily requires a very troubled mind to weigh your options there. His death shouldn't be seen so much as a cause and effect so much as a wake up call that acting in the way MIT, JSTOR, and the government did isn't right and is hurting people in ways we don't necessarily pay attention to or care about when it's just some small news item about a trial.

coldtea 13y ago

>So he has no responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including the final one? No, he has the same responsibility a raped woman has. She could opt to NOT dress provacately, after all. /s

Uhhrrr 13y ago
Comparing the amount of agency one has while committing suicide with the amount one has while being raped is inflammatory and completely ridiculous.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Really? Did you you ask his psychiatrist and he told you what his, (a self admitted depressive's) "amount of agency" was at the prospect of being thrown in jail and paying a hefty fine (plus legal expenses)? This playing both sides (MIT/Aaron) is just another way of "blaming the victim". And I don't think a person commiting suicide is less serious to rape.

chaostheory 13y ago

They deserve blame for initiating the destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) and not doing anything to stop it like JSTOR did. Yes not everyone commits suicide when their life is in ruins, but a lot of people do. Even if Aaron was still alive, the things MIT did would be no less wrong, so let's bring the focus back to that.

GrinningFool 13y ago
I agree that the things MIT did were wrong no matter the outcome. So as we do bring focus on back to it, I only ask that we do so without clouding the issue by branding them as murderers for their wrong actions.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  I have no problems with not calling MIT "murderers". It's just that your post sounds like yet another blame the victim argument and it distracts people from the main problem of MIT screwing up and not being responsible about it. They are doing everything they can to try to deflect blame and hide wrongdoing. Their findings report was just a CYA document released on a day that's guaranteed to make it forgotten. It also doesn't help that they're blocking FOIA requests. MIT could have stopped of all this by doing what JSTOR did.

a3_nm 13y ago

As a general remark, the statement "If A had done X then Y would not have happened." is not sufficient to prove that A's doing X is responsible for Y. Various counterexamples: - If the murderer's mother had refused to have sex with the murderer's father, the victim would be alive today. - If the train driver had had a sudden impulse to stop his train, the suicide could not have taken place. - If he had subscribed to the protection racket scheme, his family would not have been harmed. Responsibility is finer than causality.

ajb 13y ago

The following inference: IF A is responsible for X THEN B is not responsible for X is false, in general. Responsibility does not mutually exclude. It is often arranged that responsibilities do not overlap, but this is an organisational expediency. It is not a moral principle. So saying "the responsibility was his" as if that somehow means that no-one else can have any responsibility is wrong.