Edward Snowden’s Whistleblowing
What values are in conflict in this case? What harm did Snowden cause? What benefits did his actions bring?
The case involving Edward Snowden entail conflicting values of both ethics and legality. The ethical values include issues of morality. The morality aspect has been depicted by his intention to act for the public good. However, the legal values violated include the stealing and leaking of NSA documents. In this case, morality does not approve stealing on whichever reasons and hence the contradiction of both legal and ethical decency. The significant damage of Snowden’s actions regards the devastation of the relationship between the U.S. and other nations (Greenwald, MacAskill and Poitras, 2013, p. 24). The information leaked posed the country as an enemy in disguise to the spied nations. Nonetheless, Snowden’s actions yielded certain benefits to the citizens. The move prompted the U.S. government to implement laws prohibiting government surveillance (Greenwald, MacAskill, and Poitras, 2013, p. 12).
Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified, even if legally prohibited? Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case.
I agree with the ethical justification of Snowden’s actions regarding the public good they yielded. Moral values regard the acts that benefit the majority of people even if it imparts costs to some few (Greenwald, MacAskill and Poitras, 2013, p. 10). Snowden did not follow the legal avenues in initiating limelight on NSA as a true patriot, and hence his actions deemed unstandardized. However, his actions portrayed his intentions to save the citizens. Further, the act of whistleblowing is never easy and may create a series of reactions. Although he was breaking the law and posed as a betrayer of his responsibility to the government, Snowden thought the truth was more important and hence opted to disclose it to the public.
If you were in Snowden’s position, what would you have done, and why?
If I was in Snowden’s position, I would disclose the information to the public just like Snowden. Everyone has a right to their privacy, and having the government spying on it betrays such rights. Compiling personal information in any database without prior consent violates citizen’s rights to privacy. Although breaking the government rules is inherently risky to one’s life, I would still opt to inform the public about the government’s program that spies their privacy (Greenwald, MacAskill and Poitras, 2013, p. 8). I would probably consider the government’s spying as mistreatment of its citizens and hence, follow Snowden’s approach. Considering the abuse of authority and violation of constitutional rights of the citizens, whistleblowing was a fundamental action.
Would you change your position if you knew that Snowden’s leak would lead to a loss of life among CIA operatives? What about if it would save lives?
The CIA operatives are just a minute percentage of the U.S. population, and hence losing their lives to save the majority would not prompt me to change my position. I would stand with my position, knowing that my action would initiate an enormous change in the government systems (Greenwald, MacAskill, and Poitras, 2013, p. 7). Such change impacts the larger population and the world at large, and hence I would still whistle blow. The probability of saving lives would be a necessary motivation for my actions. If I knew that lives would be saved, I would announce the government’s unethical actions with more confidence knowing that the citizens would support me for the brave move (Greenwald, MacAskill and Poitras, 2013, p. 7).
Is there a circumstance in which you think whistleblowing would be ethically ideal? How about ethically prohibited?
In some circumstances, whistleblowing is ethically ideal. Unfortunate occurrences can be prevented through whistleblowing to disclose critical information that would otherwise not be disclosed ordinarily (Greenwald, MacAskill and Poitras, 2013, p. 8). For instance, some people face tough challenges and endure the lack of ability to save themselves. Such may be underpaid or ruthlessly treated employees who fear to confront the employers for fear of losing their jobs. Such a situation would deem whistleblowing a necessary action. Nonetheless, whistleblowing causes distraction of the normal undertaking of activities in most circumstances. As such, it may create commotions due to reactions of the confronted parties hence leading to loss of lives. In this case, it is deemed ethically prohibited.
Bibliography
Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E. and Poitras, L., 2013. Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian, 9(6), p.2.