Your book stinks. Standing by while people are taken advantage of and robbed should not be praiseworthy in anyone's book.

> Essentially on discovering I had the power to stop this illegal act without causing any harm, I felt morally obliged to do it.

This guy is a real human and a good man. You sound like a robot, legality is black and white and you don't even bring morality into question.

His entire comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/io76r/i_received...

Tangentially: check out Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_de...) -- people start to make more sense once you get your head around the theory (if you decide that it seems valid).

So, comments like the grandparent's are just examples of the law-and-order stage of moral development, whereas yours are an example of either the fifth or six stages.

When did I ever say anything about standing by?

My sincere apologies, that was a big and incorrect assumption on my part.

"Not responding with another illegal action" is not the same as "idly standing by."

Sometimes legality and morality don't intersect. This is one of those times.

Also, the OP of the reddit article is not a US citizen or resident. Not entirely sure if his actions ARE illegal in his jurisdiction, wherever it is.

Edit: In fact one poster on the reddit post pointed out specifically that in France it would be expressly legal.

Thanks for that. Other sibling posts to yours all seem to be taking the position that "the end justifies the means". That's not what's in effect here at all. In this case there's no such corruption, it's purely engaging in a moral action in defense of those being acted upon immorally.

This is not an example of utilitarian ethics, with the greatest good for the greatest number, or diverting a runaway streetcar to avoid five people on the tracks, at the cost of striking a single person on the other track.

You Lawful - Good people really need to check out how life is in this Chaotic - Good corner. We're living life to the fullest over here.

> You Lawful - Good people

I don't think GP is lawful-good. lawful-neutral as best, potentially lawful-evil. A lawful-good character would not do nothing when facing evil, and would not chide others for acting.

I am not chiding him for acting. I am chiding people for praising his actions.

What's the difference?

The difference is the impact it will have on our society. Isolated cases of illegal actions, to support the greater good, do have their place. But praising it to the world is going to play on others' emotions, encouraging them to do the same in the future. It is a slippery slope. People will be doing it for the attention in the future, not for the greater good.

And there ARE legal actions that can be taken in these scenarios. The worldwide praise of this act will encourage people to not even look for legal alternatives. Vigilante justice will prevail, and over time that damages the greater good.

Fair response. I am not sure I buy the "slippery slope" argument, especially with the intensity of the change you suggest at the end, but fair enough.

Exactly what would you have done had you come across that situation?

I'd guess nothing, like just about everyone else here.

Report the incident to people with authority to act on it. Law Enforcement, his ISP, his data provider... anyone really, who has a legal right to stop the behavior.

In my experience, you've just proposed doing nothing.

And if you have good reason to conclude nobody is going to do anything? (Law enforcement has 'real crimes', the ISP is effectively bought off, nobody else cares.)

Somebody needs to watch Boondock Saints...

And that's why those of us who are evil-aligned are having fun getting stuff done. Being a paladin is all well and fine, but it keeps you from actually benefiting mankind sometimes. "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality", as JFK said.