On 07/07/2009, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.
Probably. Humans don't handle low risk, high fatality situations where they have no control (terrorism, some trace chemicals in food) very well on the whole; they like high risk, high fatality situations where they have the illusion of some control (e.g. smoking, driving) a lot more. If the press neglected to mention terrorist activities, there would be a lot fewer, because there would be no point.
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well. The enemy probably don't want a planet killing asteroid to hit the Earth either; you shouldn't take the contrary position just because of that ;-)
Not everything is a zero sum game. Just because somebody loses, doesn't mean somebody gains, in lots of situations, everybody loses or everybody wins.
gwern