Ethical Dilemma

Today I was giving a seminar and ask to the students to help me with an ethical problem I have with my work. In summary my problem regards the anonymity of one important character in my research. This is a politically and economically powerful man from my particular researched town, and he who holds a public office at the federal level. I do preserve the anonymity of all my informants, but he has not been my informant and he is constantly criticized as the exploiter of the town. Many comments and suggestions were provided during the seminar, however one of them said exactly what I have done:

"Keep the anonymity of the good people and give the names of the evil ones" (maybe not exactly in these words, but that was the idea).

Obviously that was said just for the laugh, but yet it shows our basic desires to do that constantly instead of following ethical codes that sometimes are far fetched.

This is something so common in people's lives or do you disagree?
On an everyday basis we meet good, not so good and few evil persons. Maybe among the evil ones there will be some with mental problems who are not aware of the damage they may cause to others, but the hell, they still hurt others without giving a shit. Among those we have the psychotic people.

That is the case of one of my colleagues here, who belongs now to those called 'the weird ones'. In my working place, they do call those who are mad, bad, twisted as weird. Is that fair? Does that actually make justice to their acts and the consequences? I really don't think so, and along with me there are many more who agree, but still just live with the consciousness of calling them weird people and never inviting them to their social gatherings. Yeah, right. Meanwhile, the 'weirdos' remain around causing damage.

On the other hand, damage, deviance is much needed. I am not claiming that I want a perfect environment which does not exist anywhere. Who would we talk about? Laugh about? Those are needed, so we rather suffer under their tyranic evilness than not.

Amazingly, when we see them in the corridor or passing by the offices, we say hi, and we even respond to few favors every now and then. That is my case with one particular 'weird person', who is an older unscrupulous woman. She is my boss, and just patronizes me at leisure and bores me most of the time. Although she is an old person and has gained some wisdom through her life, she has also gained many vices which surely were encouraged by her earlier peers and colleagues who never ever told her off.

You see, all this is a fucking sick social vicious circle in which few or none stands for the best of the rest. This happens commonly here in the UK. Only in individual cases one may stand for its own rights, claim to the offender and so on. As well, in extreme cases the group will stand for the problem against the 'weird' if s/he has cause way too much damage, but just until then.

There should not be much hope on the rational capabilities of human beings, which is what I see as the problem in places like here. We should also think that someone is actually evil, twisted and/or emotionally tormented and therefore fully incapable of seeing what is best for itself and the rest. For this, there are so many infinite examples which I cannot put here. Freaking ethical codes.