The Daily Steem: Is There a Moral Duty to Rollback a Hack?

I'm under the impression that this particular perspective stands in direct conflict with certain principles upheld by many in the crypto-verse.

But I do believe that there is a subtle moral question in the debate of immutability that needs to be addressed.

Let us assume that malicious behavior is well defined, and distinguishable from expected interaction in a particular system.

That is to say malicious behavior is readily identifiable.

Let us also assume that it is possible to hardfork a particular blockchain to effectively erase a particular hack.

Consider a scenario where an entity within a wider crypto-economy has suffered a hack, that has sufficiently impacted the wider crypto-economy.

A decision not to hardfork after a hack has occurred, would mean a deliberate decision not to reverse the hack and to not to make whole the non-malicious actors in the system that suffered from it.

This would be a decision to value blockchain immutability more dearly than the direct losses suffered by non-malicious actor.

Of course, this loss suffered by non-malicious actors, is a gain for a malicious actor.

This raises certain questions in regards to the moral implications of allowing malicious behavior to be rewarded.

Is blockchain immutability a tenet that should be valued over all?

Upon what basis should blockchain immutability be valued so dearly?

Should moral trade-off always favour blockchain immutability?

Perhaps more importantly:

Is there no place for morality in programmable governance?

I, personally, have begun to wonder if we are entering a new governmental paradigm, where actions are restricted only to the extent of what can possibly be done - a system in which morality has no place.

More precisely, it would seem to me that to consistently uphold the principle of immutability, would be to endorse such a system of governance.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter: What do you think?