> 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.

I'm done with this.

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.

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.

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).

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.

> 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.

By itself? No. Merely knowing is not sufficient to make you responsible in some way.

However merely knowing is not what they are accused of.

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.