There are two principle alternatives for ethical decisions: responsibility ethics and conviction ethics.
(I have translated here the German terms Gesinnungsethik and
Verantwortungsethik. The definitions below are my own, as I have
understand the problem. What are the correct English terms and the
correct, scientific definitions?)
Responsibility Ethics
The person considers himself as responsible for all possible outcome
of his actions. That means, if his actions can lead to reactions from
other people, the person considers himself responsible also for the
effect of this reaction.
Conviction Ethics
The person considers himself responsible only for the direct intention
of his action, but not for the real results caused by the reaction of
other people (enemies). For these results, only the people who react
in this way are responsible.
I think, these alternatives are theoretical, extremal alternatives, and usually in every real ethical consideration we can find only intermediate steps. Nobody feels completely responsible for the results of the reactions of his enemies, and nobody feels completely irresponsible if his action causes de-facto automatically some reaction.
I think it is not possible to decide which is better. Many will think that responsibility ethics are better:
On the other hand, a person with responsibility ethics is easier to blackmail. To start a fight against a strong enemy without a real chance to win is usually not a decision based on responsibility ethics. At least sometimes we need people with conviction ethics.
For example, the decision to create the PRD was clearly based on conviction ethics. I'm responsible for my family, which may be harmed if my identity becomes open, and this probability is high (we work with UNIX). The PRD may be used to argue for censorship on the internet, or for closing the anon server. I try to avoid this, but I feel not very much responsible for such effects.
What is your opinion?