If the choice is between (living out my days in blissful ignorance) & (learning ugly truth & turning into a bitter wretch), I'll pick ignorance. There is no intrinsic value in truth, especially when it's not life-affirming.
That's your choice. I don't see what's so life-affirming about being a sucker with an unsatisfied spouse.
My point stands tho: telling a guy that his wife sucks D at a truck stop doesn't make you a hero. You may disagree.
It might if it leads the guy either become a better husband or free of a deceitful woman.
After [presumably] learning that your ex was a cheating piece of shit, you became a better husband?
A better husband to whom, may I ask, to your cheating ex?
Did she ...deserve a better husband?
Can we at least agree that it doesn't make you a criminal?
Sure. Farting at the opera doesn't make you a criminal either. Just unpleasant.
Can we agree that not everyone who is !criminal = hero?
Sure there is intrinsic value in truth. Society relies on the social capital truth and trust gives us. Building relations without truth would be impossible. Sound government would be impossible without truth. Engineering and science would be impossible without truth. Truth is what is in relation to others and even oneself.
In this case there are several moral actors.
The User of the dirty site - I am not too familiar with this site but I assume this is a site that arranges encounters between two consenting non-professional adults. In which case both would be the user. Whether the user is doing something immoral depends on their relationship with their significant other. If the user is in an open relationship then the "secret encounter" provided by the site is within their understanding of a trusting and respectful relationship. There is no casualty. If the users relationship with its significant other is of an entirely exclusive nature then this is naturally a violation of the trust and respect that is expected in such a relationship. But the gravity of this violation is not for anyone else to decide. For some it will be devastating, for others it will be brushed away.
The Significant OtherIf open relationship, shrug. If not, then this person must act in such a way that its person is not devalued to such an extent that it is disrespectful to itself. For instance, if the cheater shows no remorse and acts as if this is something the significant other just will have to deal with. It would be difficult to stay in such a relationship without causing harm to oneself.
The ExtortionistThis person has illegally acquired sensitive information which is of no obvious significance to the Public Sphere but could be devastating in individual cases. This person is actively threatening to cause harm unless it is paid a ransom. This person is a criminal, whatever way you look at it. Any pretense of a moral high ground simply adds insult to injury.
The SiteThis kind of business is riddled with moral grey zones. The best defense it has is that the users are grown ups and must be held responsible to their own choices. Which is right. But...
Bitcoin SpeculatorsThe fact that other peoples misery can have positive effects for someone else is not new. It's not exceptional either. But we have examples where it is very clear that it's strongly morally problematic: war profiteering, blood diamonds, cheap goods from child labour.
Is this one of those cases? I doubt there are many of us who got into Bitcoin because we thought we would ride on a wave of sizzling blackmail. Nor is that the intended goal of Bitcoin. Can we let ourselves completely off the hook? We know Bitcoin is being used by criminals, as is any other currency. But by supporting, or at least not standing in the way of, considered and appropriate measures to prevent such activity, we can soothe our conscience a bit.
Hypotethical MoralistIf a Moralist, in support of some dogma, were to release the information without demanding a ransom, he might think he is doing good. Admittedly, the users will get what's coming to them and the significant others will get to know the truth. But the moralist acts as a judge and executioner in a series of cases he knows nothing about. And there certainly isn't any reason why the general public should have access to this information. What if it turns out that most of these encounters happens with the blessing of the significant other? And even this is just a minority, what right does he have to stick his nose into their business?
"The absolute worst kind of person is a moralist" - Anonymous
(I know I'm too late with this, but I wrote this shit so I'm posting it)
