> In this line of thought, I also think it is irrelevant whether putting publicly funded research results behind a paywall is ethical on the publisher's side: two unethical acts don't make an ethical one.
I think taking public money, and using it specifically to enrich a private company, and not providing value back to the public who paid for both sides of the transaction is actually unethical. Moreso, I think there is regulatory capture going on, and manipulation of our political leaders through strategic donations [1]
If, by opposing an unjust system, you are doing something that may be in name "illegal or contrary" to the law, but morally that is sterling, then you are in the right.
By your same argument, you could claim that doing any member of the Underground Railroad that helped blacks escape from an unjust, oppressive system was also doing something unethical. Despite the legal definitions of property at the time. Do you see where this argument heads?
I think taking public money, and using it specifically to enrich a private company, and not providing value back to the public who paid for both sides of the transaction is actually unethical. Moreso, I think there is regulatory capture going on, and manipulation of our political leaders through strategic donations [1]
If, by opposing an unjust system, you are doing something that may be in name "illegal or contrary" to the law, but morally that is sterling, then you are in the right.
By your same argument, you could claim that doing any member of the Underground Railroad that helped blacks escape from an unjust, oppressive system was also doing something unethical. Despite the legal definitions of property at the time. Do you see where this argument heads?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2018/j...