Aristotle and Anonymous

The hacker ethic is closely related to the virtue ethics found in the writings of Aristotle. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics suggests there is an ultimate good toward which, in the end, all human actions ultimately aim. Virtue Ethics refers to the philosophy that emphasizes being, rather than doing. This means that morality stems from the how a person identifies his/her motivations for the action, and the character inherent in that person, and not from actions of that person alone. Ethical choices and examination must be made in each individual situation, based on factors such as personal vs social(group) benefit, and what intentions are present in the person(s) …are they well meant or malevolent?. Anonymous is a complex example to examine because by it’s very nature, it consists of a group of persons of unknown identity, who, despite claiming altruistic intention, may in truth be carrying out actions that benefit a smaller chosen group, although they claim to seek justice for others…or they may be as they seem. In truth, that may fluctuate at every moment, as it is a “many” and not a “one”.

Anonymous was formed on the imageboard 4chan, primarily a place to chat and post images and rambling text (often incoherent or offensive…at this point I’d like to shout out to the /b/tards!). They act at times like a hive mind with no openly recognized leaders, choosing to encourage and inspire group action under an anonymous fictional figurehead (as shown by their logo, a suited figure without a head, instead there is only a question mark, standing in a stance of authority in front of a globe). Starting somewhere around 2006, members of this collective have collaborated through anonymous Internet Relay Chat (IRC), where they communicate in group chats, send each other private messages. There is also the capability to exchange files via FTP/file transfers via IRC. IRC creates a decentralized “war room” in which ideas are exchanged, agreements are made as a group, and plans may be deployed. Actions that follow include DDoD attacks , the public posting of group information mining efforts, exposing as muany details as possible to the public eye about offending groups, people or corporations, including security flaws and exploits of websites that may be used by any and all, to create further breaches and attacks. The factor of anonymity and the group collective effort of many (“We are Legion”, they proclaim), can have strong influence on certain social groups in today’s society.

The idea that Anonymous represents is ethical. They represent a symbolic figurehead, an inspiration and identification symbol by which to organize actions with intent towards acts of activism via hacking, or “hackivism”. Individuals within the whole collective operates in a non-centralized, collective manner that insists on overall agreement in order for such action to succeed despite any petty differences or disagreements, with members working together in order to accomplish set goals. In addition, they put out the call for others to join, adding further strength in numbers. But the question is - is crashing a website, or denying people access to the information or function of it, a morally justified means of protest? Is putting the personal information of a person who has committed a perceived wrong out there helpful? I bring up the case of the “pepper spray cop”, John Pike…are the efforts of publishing his information, that result in lots of pizza, male escorts and such being sent to his home, that he shares with a family who are not at fault, worth it as a form of protest? Is it worth it if only to shame HIS unethical behavior, and do we consider the demoralizing effect this may have on innocent members of his family? In John Pike’s case alone, Aristotle would argue for Distributive Justice…in essence, that people should get what they deserve. In Pikes case, it could be argued that he “deserves” less respect, authority, and dignity or pride. Certainly it can be said, that despite the resulting actions being petty, that they strip away his dignity and lower the reflection upon him of those traits I have just mentioned. When considering this protest, or any other, the moral reasoning of the protest should be examined. If that action is deemed to NOT fit in the reasoning, and instead commits a wrong to the target by way of the action, then that act of protest should seem morally wrong. Aristotle’s virtue ethical theory only focuses only upon the agent of the chosen action. The actions of a single individual in such an act of protest, compared to the relative morality of the rest of the world, may not be considered ethical, but the scale of justice shifts when it is a mass, faceless collective. It becomes easy to understand them as the Everyman. This gains sympathy – who doesn’t want to see a “bad guy” come to his just desserts, after all?