The Ethics of Hacker Ethics: Is There Such a Thing as "Fair" Carding? (A Philosophical Debate on Responsibility, Fairness, and Harm)

[Professor]

Introduction: In Search of Morality in the Immoral.
Carding is, by definition, fraud, illegality, and appropriation of someone else's property. However, within the community and in the cultural space, there are ongoing attempts to construct an ethical justification for this activity. This has led to the emergence of the paradoxical concept of "fair carding" — an attempt to find a moral basis in an inherently immoral act. This philosophical debate reveals profound questions about the nature of justice, responsibility, and harm in the digital age.

Chapter 1: The Case for Ethical Carding: Moral Relativism in Action​

Proponents of the concept put forward a number of theses designed to absolve the carder of moral responsibility.

1. The thesis of a "victimless" crime.

• Claims: "Banks insure losses," "Giant corporations won't feel the losses," "Money is virtual." Carding is presented as a redistribution of resources within an abstract, impersonal financial system where there are no specific people suffering.
• Criticism: This is a dehumanizing abstraction. The harm is done to specific people: stress and temporary loss of funds for cardholders; increased fees and insurance premiums for all bank customers; the ruin of small online stores due to chargebacks. The damage is dispersed, but real.

2. The thesis of “just retribution” (Robin Hood narrative).

• Claim: The carder robs the "robbers." Banks and corporations are portrayed as inherently immoral institutions, living off hidden fees, interest slavery, and manipulation. Carding becomes an act of social revenge and the restoration of justice.
• Criticism: This is a substitution of goals. If the motive is justice, then where does the money go? To charity? No, to personal enrichment, luxury, and status. This is not redistribution, but appropriation under a noble slogan. Moreover, the victims are often not "corporations," but ordinary people.

3. The thesis on “technical honesty” (Hacker’s Code).

• Statement: Honesty lies not in the attitude toward the victim, but in the attitude toward the craft and the community. An "honest" carder is someone who is a master of coding, doesn't scam their own people on forums, adheres to OPSEC, and "respects the game." Harm to the outside world is outside the scope of moral judgment.
• Critique: This is an instrumental ethic that reduces morality to the professional solidarity of saboteurs. It is analogous to "honor among thieves," which does not negate the fact of theft. Concern for reputation within a criminal community does not make crime ethical in relation to society.

4. The thesis of “forced choice” (Contextual ethics).

• Claim: Given social inequality and the lack of opportunities in the legal IT sector, carding is becoming the only social mobility for talented people from disadvantaged regions. This isn't an excuse, but an explanation that shifts some of the blame from the individual to the system.
• Criticism: An explanation is not a justification. Harsh social circumstances may mitigate punishment in court (as a mitigating circumstance), but they do not change the moral assessment of the act. A crime does not cease to be a crime simply because the perpetrator is poor.

Chapter 2: Counterarguments: Why Carding Can't Be "Fair"​

1. The principle of non-voluntariness. Any ethical transaction is based on the informed consent of the parties. In carding, the victim is deprived of choice and information. Deception is a fundamental and inherent condition, making the activity inherently immoral.

2. The principle of harm (non-harm). Even if damage is insured, it exists. Carding:

• Generates colossal systemic security costs that are paid by society.
• It undermines trust, the foundation of the digital economy.
• Causes psychological damage to victims (feelings of violation, anxiety, helplessness).

3. Kant's categorical imperative. "Act only in accordance with a maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." If all talented IT specialists took up carding, the financial system and digital trust would collapse. The universalization of such a practice leads to chaos, and therefore it cannot be a moral law.

4. Utilitarianism (the greatest happiness principle). Even if the carder and their inner circle derive happiness from money, the cumulative suffering of the victims, the costs to banks, and the systemic damage to trust clearly outweigh this local benefit. From the perspective of the common good, carding is destructive.

Chapter 3: Gray Areas and Borderline Cases: Where Does the Illusion of "Ethics" Arise?​

The illusion of "honesty" sometimes arises in specific contexts:

• "Carding" against clearly criminal organizations: For example, hacking and stealing funds from drug or child pornography websites. The logic of "robbing the robbers" applies here, which may find moral support among some in society. However, from a legal perspective, this is still arbitrary and criminal.
• Carding as a hacktivist tool: Stealing funds from a corporation and then donating them to charity (there have been real cases). This is a complex case, where the violation of one ethical principle (thou shalt not steal) is justified in order to achieve another (helping those in need). However, even here, the principles of legality and voluntariness are violated, and a dangerous precedent is created.

Philosophical verdict: Even in these cases, there is no such thing as "fair carding," only morally questionable or ambivalent situations where one evil is pitted against another. The carder assumes the role of judge and executioner, which does not legitimize their actions.

Chapter 4: Why is this debate important? The implications of ethical casuistry​

The endless debate about "ethical carding" has real consequences:

1. Self-justification and the removal of cognitive dissonance: For carders, this rhetoric is a psychological mechanism that allows them to maintain self-respect and avoid pangs of conscience.
2. Recruitment narrative: For darknet recruiters, it's a tool to seduce idealistic youth, who are sold carding as a form of digital protest.
3. Challenge for the law enforcement system: When a criminal does not consider himself a criminal, and part of society doubts his absolute guilt, this complicates public consensus and support for the fight against this type of crime.
4. A signal of systemic problems: The very fact that such a discussion is emerging points to deep-seated problems: a crisis of trust in financial institutions, social inequality, and ethical disorientation in the digital world.

Conclusion: Ethics as a Luxury Crime Cannot Afford
The attempt to construct an "ethics of carding" is a philosophical fallacy and a moral oxymoron. Ethics, by definition, presupposes responsibility to the Other, respect for their autonomy and rights. Carding, however, is based on the denial of all this: on deception, appropriation, and concealment.

"Fair carding" is as impossible a construct as "humane torture" or "just rape." One can endlessly debate the gradations of harm, the culpability of the system, and technical virtuosity, but the fundamental ethical failure — the use of another person (their data, their resources) without their knowledge and consent as a means to an end — remains unchanged.

The true "hacker ethic," rooted in the early culture of MIT and the free software community, was founded on the ideas of knowledge, freedom of information, and system improvement. Carding is its antithesis, based on concealment, self-interest, and the destruction of trust. Confusing them is not only a legal but also a philosophical error. Ultimately, ethics is not a flexible tool for justifying any action, but a rigid framework that crumbles at the first attempt to build a house on it, the foundation of which is deception.