>Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't?
That's bad reasoning.
That "some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't" can just as well prove the reverse: that NOT all people have the same "power to choose".
Especially a self-professed depressive like Aaron.
Some people are more thick-skinned, either due to temperament, upbringing, genetics, circumstances etc.
>I'm guessing suicidal depression was really to blame for his suicide.
And this "suicidal depression" was unknown to MIT/his prosecutors? Or they found it nice to taunt and threaten someone suffering with such, over a non-issue?
>That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way.
I'm finding pop psychology explanations like your serve another plausible rationalization mechanism: it makes those saying them feel superior and more logical compared to the naives that "seek a powerful organization to rage against". (If you allow me the same pop psychology)
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 prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future.
> 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 prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future.
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.
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.
>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).
> 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.
>> I'm guessing suicidal depression was really to blame for his suicide.
> And this "suicidal depression" was unknown to MIT/his prosecutors? Or they found it nice to taunt and threaten someone suffering with such, over a non-issue?
Even if you know someone is suicidal, that doesn't make you accountable for them committing suicide.
Okay, let's say someone is suicidal, and you know this, _and_ you do something heartless and stupid to them. They subsequently commit suicide.
Would it be correct to say that whatever circumstances existed where the person was suicidal to such an extent that you _knew_ they were suicidal... were _not_ responsible for the suicide? I mean, doesn't the definition of "suicidal" imply that suicide is a distinct possibility even if no one takes further negative steps?
Or perhaps to put it another way... would this ridiculously shitty conduct be any less so if Aaron were alive today?
Seriously, the notion that things like suicide are controlled by _anyone_ is pretty ridiculous. Sure, sometimes people can make a conscious choice that changes outcomes, and there are no doubt things one can do that improve or reduce the odds... but definitively laying culpability on someone's shoulders is rarely possible.
I think it is enough to say that doing shitty things to people who really don't deserve it is bad, and it is worse when you know those people are already fragile and/or suffering. Engaging in histrionics and scapegoating, if anything undermines the argument.
That's bad reasoning.
That "some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't" can just as well prove the reverse: that NOT all people have the same "power to choose".
Especially a self-professed depressive like Aaron.
Some people are more thick-skinned, either due to temperament, upbringing, genetics, circumstances etc.
>I'm guessing suicidal depression was really to blame for his suicide.
And this "suicidal depression" was unknown to MIT/his prosecutors? Or they found it nice to taunt and threaten someone suffering with such, over a non-issue?
>That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way.
I'm finding pop psychology explanations like your serve another plausible rationalization mechanism: it makes those saying them feel superior and more logical compared to the naives that "seek a powerful organization to rage against". (If you allow me the same pop psychology)
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 prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future.