4 ms·

> In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't solve anything (even if it was true). > Blaming MIT and the prosecution will preve

• markdown 13y ago
  Set aside the suicide and imagine that Aaron were still alive today, and you'll find that everything we're saying against MIT still stands. They acted terribly. The thing is, a guy's dead, and the best thing we can do is use his death to make the world a better place.
  • mpyne 13y ago
    Sometimes I wonder if we've forgotten who broke into who's subnet here. :P Certainly the prosecution should have been in felony mode, but there wasn't no reason to avoid prosecution, except to pander to a highly vocal group.
• coldtea 13y ago
  >So MIT and the prosecution unfairly targeted Aaron to serve their personal motives. And now you're suggesting we unfairly pin his death on them to serve your personal motives. No, I'm suggesting what you describe as "my personal motives" are actually the greater good. And that it would not be "unfair" to pin his death on them, since they, as you say, " unfairly targeted Aaron to serve their personal motives". (Also, you seem to conflate similar behaviour --e.g serving one's motives-- as being of the same moral value regarless of the causes and circumstances. To give a vibrant example, a bully beating a nerd is serving his personal motives. The nerd fighting back will also be serving his personal motives. But it's clear where the moral superiority lies in this case).
  • freyr 13y ago
    > And that it would not be "unfair" to pin his death on them, since they, as you say, " unfairly targeted Aaron to serve their personal motives". Surely, you've heard the old aphorism "two wrongs don't make a right"? Besides being a noble thought, it's also pragmatic. If you're acting dishonestly or deceptively to make your case, you're going to lose the support and respect of honest people who are fighting for the same cause. It also just makes your cause look much weaker (why do you need to resort to that in the first place?) > (Also, you seem to conflate similar behaviour --e.g serving one's motives-- as being of the same moral value regarless of the causes and circumstances. I don't believe a positive end result excuses immoral behavior, particularly when all other options have not yet been exhausted. Also, I don't believe your cause (getting law enforcement to look the other way on "beneficial hacks" that break the law) is a universal cause. When one person's "beneficial hack" violates another person's legal rights (even if it's for the perceived greater good), it's obviously not as black and white as you imagine it to be. >To give a vibrant example, a bully beating a nerd is serving his personal motives. The nerd fighting back will also be serving his personal motives. But it's clear where the moral superiority lies in this case). What if the nerd stole the bully's lunch money first? Any morally ambiguous scenario can be reduced down to a simplistic example that ignores the nuances of reality.