As with any research, opposition research relies on sources (which might be fictional). If the goal is to gather true and relevant information, then the credibility of sources is of great concern. There are, of course, the usual logical standards for assessing the credibility of sources. This assumes that the goal is to find information that is true (and relevant). In such cases, the argument from authority provides a good guide. After all, to accept a claim from a source as true because of the source is to engage in the argument from authority. This argument has the following form:
Premise 1: A makes claim C about Subject S.
Premise 2: A is an authority on subject S.
Conclusion: C is true.
The argument can also be recast as an argument from credibility, if one prefers that to authority.
Premise 1: A makes claim C about Subject S.
Premise 2: A is a credible source on subject S.
Conclusion: C is true.
Assessing this reasoning involves assessing the credibility of source of the claim. One of the main factors of concern is the degree that the source is biased: the more biased, the less credible. Other factors include that the source has the expertise/knowledge to make claims on the subject, whether the source is identified or not (anonymous sources cannot be properly assessed for credibility), and whether credible sources also agree that the claim is true. It must be noted that a lack of credibility does not prove that a claim is false. Rather, a lack of credibility means that there is no reason to accept the claim on the basis of that source. Because people tend to weigh bias very heavily, it is especially important to note that biased sources can still make true claims—proving bias lowers credibility but does not disprove the claim. For example, the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hates Hillary Clinton does not prove that his claims about her are false. This bias does, however, reduce his credibility since he has a reason to say untrue negative things about her. As such, using Assange as a source for opposition research against Hillary would require considering this biasing factor. Credibility, obviously, is quite relevant to the assessing the ethics of selecting sources.
If the goal of opposition research us to get true and relevant information, then only credible sources should be used. While there is the question of how credible a source should be, a minimal standard should be that the source is more likely to be truthful than lying. And, to follow the advice of John Locke, the evidence must be proportional to the strength of the claim. So, for example, the claim that a candidate’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination would require considerable support. If the goal is simply to win by any means necessary, then the moral concerns are irrelevant. What would matter would be pragmatic concerns about the effectiveness of the information acquired from the source. If the credibility of the source matters to the public (which, as Trump has shown, is often not the case), then credible sources should be used. If the target audience does not care about credulity, then it would not matter—and opposition research could become fiction writing. One could also advance the usual sort of utilitarian argument that the end of defeating a bad opponent would justify the means—though this would also require considering the harm caused by setting aside concerns about credibility.
In addition to the credibility concerns about sources, there are also moral worries about sources—especially about which sources are ethical to use. As was the case with methods, the use of publicly accessible sources raises no special moral problems. After all, such information is already available, and the opposition research merely collects it so it can be used against the opposition. As with the ethics of methods, the law can provide a useful starting point for ethical considerations about sources. It can also be argued that the use of illegal sources would be unfair to the opposition—if they are staying within the law. Naturally, it should be kept in mind that the law is distinct from morality, so that the legal is not always ethical and the illegal is not always unethical.
One example that helped bring opposition research into the public eye is the Russian efforts to get information to the Trump campaign in 2016. While Trump claims that they had nothing of value, it is illegal for a candidate to receive anything of value from a foreign source. In addition to the illegality of accepting foreign assistance in a political campaign, there is also the moral argument that outsiders should not be allowed to interfere in our elections—even if they have true and relevant information. After all, the election is the business of the citizens and foreign involvement subverts democracy. As another example, someone who violates a non-disclosure agreement to provide information would also be an illegal source. From a moral standpoint, the person who signed the NDA would be breaking their agreement and thus acting unethically. Naturally, if the NDA was imposed unjustly or otherwise morally problematic, then breaking it could be morally acceptable. However, as a general rule, using sources that have made an agreement not provide information would seem to be wrong. But, there is the obvious problem that NDAs are sometimes used to hide rather bad things that would be quite relevant to political decision making.
As was the case with methods, one could advance the argument that winning is all that matters or a utilitarian argument could be used to justify using morally dubious sources. For example, a utilitarian argument could be made for getting a source to break an NDA that forbids them from talking about the settlement they got from being sexually harassed by a Democratic senator. After all, this information would be relevant to deciding whether to vote for the senator.
More broadly, it could be argued that the source should not matter—if the information is true and relevant. After all, the right of citizens to know true and relevant information could be taken to override ethical concerns about sources. This is something that likely requires assessment on a case-by-case basis. To illustrate, consider the question of whether political campaigns should accept true and relevant information from foreign powers. On the one hand, there is the argument that the information could help prevent harm by reducing the chance that a bad person would be elected or appointed. However, accepting such aid from foreign powers is to invite the subversion of the election process and would presumably create more harm in the long run than whatever harm specific information might prevent in particular cases. As such, foreign sources of this type would be unethical to use. In the next and final essay, I will consider the ethics of the content of opposition research, which focuses on the matter of relevance.