What would you do if you had to kill one man to save a hundred?” Long pause. “That’s an impossible question to answer,” I say.
“You’ve got two minutes to think about it before they all die,” he says.
I am near the end of a somewhat unconventional job interview. WikiLeaks is the organisation. My interviewer is Julian Assange. […]
After about 30 seconds of silence, I muster a response.”Well, if I could rationalise that the greater good would be achieved by saving more lives, then… I guess the man would have to go,” I say, lying; unconvincing to myself, but maybe less so to my audience.
How strange to utter the death sentence of an unknown innocent for the “greater good” of the many, to impress in a job interview. This reductionist, moral utilitarianism seems ethically unjustifiable, but what do I know? I wonder if I’m glimpsing the fringes of Assange’s philosophy and it’s unsettling. The idea is dangerous.
I look at him, perplexed. The claustrophobia of his house arrest and the siege mentality provoking this philosophy are reflected in his constant talk of being “at war” and echoed by the Stockholm Syndrome-lite relationship between him and his disciples. What risks are we to take for Assange’s goal of ultimate transparency?
“Good answer,” he says. [bron]