n-harmful virus even though it still invade a persons privacy.(158)Now to change the subject slightly. If a virus caused physical harm, such as a fire because the computer's monitor over-heated, should the virus writer be held responsible? If we were to ask Aristotle he would want to know if the virus writer meant for the monitor to over-heat and start a fire or if he was just trying to damage the monitor. Assuming that it was just meant to get the monitor hot and distort the picture then the fire could be "owing to ignorance"(44), in otherwords it was involuntary. Aristotle taught that "...virtue is concerned with passions and action, and on voluntary passions and actions praise and blame are bestowed, on those that are involuntary pardon, and sometimes also pity..."(45) Since the person that wrote the harmful code was ignorant to the possibility of a fire then pardon should be granted. If, however, the person did mean to cause a fire then blame and the proper punishment should be administrated. Biblical Tradition says in Exodus, "you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."(71) Providing that the Nottingham 6virus writer is caught, his property should be burned.But what if the virus caused a death? Should the punishment be worse? Biblical Tradition says, "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I [God] will appoint for you a place to which he may flee."(71) If the virus writer didn't mean for the virus to cause a death, as was the case with the Cookie Monster virus, then he should not be executed. The Utilitarianist, John Stuart Mill, wrote in On Liberty, "Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and ...
