Q.Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence of Government surveillance programmes. According to many legal experts and the US Government, his action violated the Espionage act of 1971, which identified the leak of State secret as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistle blowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in there name and that which is done against them.” According to Snowden, the Government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised national security, for which he should be held accountable. 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
Model Answer
View this Question In PYQ RealmIntroduction
This case study centers on the actions of Edward Snowden, who disclosed highly classified intelligence documents to expose global mass surveillance operations. From a consequentialist standpoint, the core ethical challenge is determining whether violating state secrecy laws is justified when the action serves to prevent systemic harm and maximize the welfare of the global public.
Body Analysis
Ethical Dilemma
The primary tension lies between the duty to uphold national security (which protects citizens from external threats) and the duty to protect individual liberties (which ensures citizens are not subjected to arbitrary state overreach).
Arguments Justifying Snowden's Actions (Maximizing Public Welfare)
- Protection of Civil Liberties: Mass surveillance programs infringed upon the fundamental right to privacy of millions of citizens. By exposing these programs, Snowden prevented the unchecked expansion of state power, thereby safeguarding the long-term well-being and democratic freedoms of the public.
- The Public's Right to Know: True democratic governance relies on informed consent. Informing the public about actions taken in their name, but hidden from them, restores accountability and allows citizens to make informed decisions, maximizing societal utility.
- Preventing Abuse of Power: Unmonitored surveillance systems possess a high potential for systemic abuse. Exposing these systems serves as a vital corrective mechanism, minimizing the risk of future state-sponsored harms.
Arguments Against Snowden's Actions (Evaluating Potential Harms)
- Compromising National Security: Uncontrolled leaks of classified data can disrupt intelligence operations, potentially exposing covert operatives and leaving the state vulnerable to security threats, which could result in severe collective harm.
- Undermining the Rule of Law: Bypassing established legal frameworks sets a dangerous precedent. If every individual decides which laws to follow based on personal moral calculations, it could lead to institutional instability and a breakdown of public order.
- Availability of Alternative Channels: It is argued that Snowden could have utilized internal whistleblowing channels, which might have addressed the ethical concerns while minimizing the risk of compromising national security.
Conclusion
When weighing these competing consequences, Snowden's actions are ethically justified because the systemic, widespread harm of mass privacy violations outweighs the localized, manageable risks to state intelligence frameworks. The exposure triggered global reforms and essential debates on data privacy, generating a net positive outcome for global democratic society. However, to prevent future chaotic disruptions, states must establish robust, transparent, and trustworthy internal whistleblowing mechanisms that allow systemic issues to be resolved without compromising public safety.