I’ve had this argument with respect to a related case: sneaking into movies. It is morally permissible to sneak into a movie if at least the following two conditions obtain:

(1) You would not otherwise have payed to see the movie
(2) Your presence in the theater does not negatively impact others

Now for a little unpacking: (1) is tricky because the ability to sneak in plausibly influences one’s decision-making. Someone might think, “Given that I can sneak in, I’m not going to pay for it.” So for (1) to obtain it must truly be the case that, given the impossibility of sneaking in, you would not pay to see the film. (2) has any number of implications. The most important, it seems to me, is that the seat you’re are sitting in must otherwise have been empty. Granted, depriving someone of their preferred seat could make them unknowingly choose a seat that is better for them, but let’s not give ourselves that much authority.

In my experience, counter-arguments to this position are miserable failures. Richard Chappell (author of the link above) wisely points out that it is best not to publicize this principle, for fear of offering “incentive for self-deception.” As a practical matter I agree, but as he says, moral principles are not knave-proof.

I wonder: Is the best blogging practice just to link, or to crosspost? Discuss.