Many of the questions I receive inevitably boil down to the same fundamental problem: Is it ethically acceptable to do one bad thing if that transgression benefits the world at large? Most of the time, I argue that it is (and then subsequently receive a dozen e-mails from outraged readers quoting Kant’s Categorical Imperative). But this query is a little more complicated. Giving $1,000 to a spammer isn’t like giving an AK-47 to a terrorist, but it does assist a socially abhorrent person who makes the world slightly worse (and could, in theory, proliferate a virus). Moreover, the data you’re learning in exchange does not appear to irrefutably help anyone — according to your letter, the principal upside is that you learn “interesting information.” So the question is really this: Is it morally acceptable to reward an annoying, semi-innocuous criminal in order to better understand how annoying, semi-innocuous criminals operate?

In the broadest sense, the answer is yes. Any serious attempt at improving our collective understanding of reality justifies a reasonable cost, assuming that cost does not directly violate anyone’s human rights. The situation you describe probably qualifies — but only if you can answer yes to the following questions:

1. Is this the best way to study underground economies? I can’t say for certain — but I know it can’t be the only way.

2. Does the intent of your investigation represent any level of practical utility? I generally support “knowledge for the sake of knowledge,” but if you’re rewarding someone who’s making the world slightly less livable, there needs to be a degree of counterbalance. If successful, what you’re learning here should have a real-world application.

3. To the best of your intellectual ability, do you fully understand the damage this action could inflict?

Regarding your second query (“How sure should we be of a positive scientific outcome before entering into these transactions?”): This is an exploration. If you predecide what your findings need to be in order to validate the experiment, it will push you toward potentially false conclusions. For a researcher, that’s intellectually unethical. The possibility of total failure is an acceptable (and a necessary) risk.

E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/magazine/bankrolling-the-botnets.html?partner=rss&emc=rss