Is it ethically justifiable to pirate copies of banned “subversive” books that would have otherwise been inaccessible? Does the ethical good of advancing the “liberating” freedom of knowledge against perceived state-sponsored repression negate the ethical reprehension of violating intellectual property and denying alms to a poor writer?
Or maybe the very act of attempting to read a “subversive” book is unethical for it evinces contempt for the rule of law? Would civil disobedience be a justifiable apologist defence for the contempt of the rule of law? Is the perceived immorality of state-sponsored repression actually ethically justified for it protects a far greater good of social harmony from the evils of political subversion? Would the ethical good of advancing freedom of knowledge then be unethical?
Is political subversion morally acceptable for it provides for democratic pluralism and hence sustainable state accountability in the long term? Is democratic liberalism still so ethically good when what society needs is the pure utilitarian need for economic development and social harmony that would otherwise be impeded by bickering political pluralism?
Wait, on the other note, maybe perhaps violating intellectual property rights is ethical for it diminishes intellectual monopoly and its rent-seeking encroachment on the public good of knowledge? Why are we back at discussing the ethical goodness of freedom of access to knowledge? Also maybe perhaps denying alms to a poor writer is less of an ethical bad, for the writer would in the first place get only a modicum of profits owing to the restricted circulation of his work?
Is it ethical even to attempt to lend support to a writing as a profession for society needs less writers but instead the precious utility of doctors, engineers and technocrats? Is it ethical of me to continue writing this lengthy reductionist line of questioning when it is frivolous and time-wasting in face of more productive things I could engage in instead?
Or maybe I should just get that copy of that banned book which critically analyses the local legal institution? Or is it unethical of me to step on the toes of numerous ethical positions by engaging in the aforementioned act without further deliberation and indecision?