Not strictly FUD-related – the article itself is rather about environmentalists supposedly more likely to cheat or be reckless than other people due to their tendency to feel morally compensated for their own misdeeds.
Since as early as 1990, psychologists have been researching on a supposed human behavior known as “moral balancing”, or, in layman’s terms, “the self-entitling of 'rights’ to kill babies due to the mere fact that one has donated a few cents to Save the Children Foundation”. I am not going through the excruciating length of reiterating what the experts have to say in grand details, but, in a nutshell, the implication of “moral balancing” is that those who profess some form of moral views are not necessarily better individuals than those who don’t even by the standards of those moral views, and, in some cases, those who do are in fact much worse at adhering them than those who don’t.
To quote Professor Nina Mazar from University of Toronto, “they felt they had this moral credit to engage in selfish behavior.”
Now, rather than letting myself offer you dear readers a conclusion, I want to try something different:
Post in the comment selection about your observations on Linux/open-source advocates and whether or not, in your opinion, they exhibit a consistent behavioral pattern of “moral balancing”. Detail your observations in your comment.
Now, fire away.