Mr. Snowden, Are You Justified in Your Actions?
According to American philosopher and psychologist, William James, “there can be no final truth in ethics anymore than in physics, until the last man has had his experience or said his say” (William James). In regards to this quote by William James, the ethical concerns brought to light by Mr. Snowden “having his experience and saying his say” are numbered; therefore, I will elaborate upon two, which I deem deserving of comprehensive speculation. For example, the first ethical issue raised is seen through Mr. Snowden sharing his exposure of classified information, privileged only to the National Security Agency, and its employees. Indeed, Mr. Snowden took it upon himself to divulge these personal known truths for all to acknowledge, which in short; enlightened all American citizens to what the National Security Agency was doing, “behind closed doors.” Thus, Mr. Snowden displayed genuine, upright conduct in relation to his concerns about what was happening each day to the people of the United States. For as United States citizens, we befittingly have a right to know when our privacy is being infringed upon, and furthermore, should have to agree to it. Yet; at the same time we are presented with another equitable complication, which is Mr. Snowden should be held accountable for his actions of wrong doing. Consequently, he should have to stand trial in order to pay retribution for the crime he committed. In order to bring
Snowden and Senator Rand Paul oppose the Patriot Act because they both feel that it violates our 4th Amendment. The Patriot Act entitles allows inferior agencies to unreasonable searches and seizures of a person’s house and papers. The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant from a judge. The Patriot act allow the Federal Government to violate this amendment. In fact, when the Patriot Act enables violation of the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1 and 2 are also violated. It infringes on our right to bear arms and the freedom of speech. Our government makes shallow promises to protect us during times of crisis, such as terrorist attacks, but what do we give up? They offer us freedom
The law, as fearful and absolute as it may be, is not always just. It is actually quite admirable that he knowingly broke a serious law that not many dare to commit to do what he truly felt was the right thing to do. According to Edward Snowden himself, “There were people throughout the NSA that I worked with that I had private conversations with—and I’ve had conversations since in other federal agencies—who had the same concerns I did, but they were afraid to take action because they knew what would happen.” (Nation) To many Americans, this make Snowden a hero. It is extremely courageous to sacrifice and risk everything you have to fight for and protect the rights of your fellow Americans by standing up against the federal government knowing full well of the consequences of his action. He did not betray the country, but instead, he fought to preserve the true form of liberty and freedom at its core in which our country have adopted and built itself
Many people have always wondered what the word ethics mean. To me ethics is the feeling of right and wrong. Many people have their own way of defining ethics and but this is what ethics mean to me. Ethics to other people might mean following the laws and some may say ethics is determined by what society is believed is right and wrong. For example Edward Snowden, a 30 year old man was born in North Carolina in 1983 (Edward snowden.biography, 2013, para. 1). Edward Snowden was a security guard that worked for the National Security Agency (NSA), after three months Edward Snowden started to collect NSA files and fled to Hong Kong and leaked the files. China started to print out report of the files that Edward Snowden has leaked to China
It has been reported that he was invited to join the NSA’s hacking team known as Tailor Access Operations. Given the fact that he was given access to such classified it can be said that he was a highly skilled employee, however his personal conscious differed from his employer’s goals. One of the main reasons Snowden decided to leak the data that he did, was because he felt that the gross amount of constitutional laws being broken was not acceptable. Though Snowden was correct in that there were many laws being broken, he did in the end break the law himself by disclosing such classified information. Snowden understood his fate would likely be bleak but hoped to make a difference and enlighten the public. In that self-sacrificing view, Edward Snowden is a hero. A hero who is not afraid of the consequences, but who wishes everyone to know to what extent they are being monitored and watched. Edward Snowden sacrificed the freedom he once had, permanently, just to inform citizens of the world what was occurring in their governments. Even though there were many other individuals with similar access, no one ever felt obligated to come forward with this information. Snowden may be a hero but he much more than that, he helped many, hurt others, and informed the
Edward Snowden has gone on record and said that what he intended to do was to help the American public realize a wrong that had been done against them. What he failed to realize ahead of time were the awful consequences that would arise as a result of his
In my Own Belief Peaceful resistance to laws That are meant to Discriminate. Against a group of people or promote Advantages Among the people in charge. Are meant to happen because They Help us Promote an even Fairer and Better Society for Everyone. All Civil Disobedience Leaders From Martin Luther King Jr, To Nelson Mandela, To Rosa Parks, and Mahatma Gandhi. All worked For the Betterment of society as a whole
The NSA had been spying on the public more than we were aware and past their legal limits. It was proven the NSA had been spying on millions of calls and emails from around the world (Szoldra). It was also proven that they used big companies such as Google to track citizens beyond their privacy laws allowed them too (Szoldra). Snowden was morally right in exposing the secrets of surveillance in our country because it keeps the basic liberties of the people and keeps places like the internet and your phone private as they should be. Because of his actions, many American leaders have tried to get support to prosecute him and even have gone as far as hacking China's internet to find him, although Snowden should not be persecuted,
While working for the NSA, Snowden became aware of their extensive trespasses against the privacy of U.S. and international citizens alike. Upon considering the extent of these trespasses, Snowden felt that it was his moral duty, as he stated, “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them”. His provided information showed the use of Internet surveillance programs, and the evaluation of phone records in the form of “metadata”. Many argue that Snowden’s leaking of information has hindered our government’s ability to intercept terrorist plots, by informing the world of the NSA’s capabilities, and therefore allowing terrorist groups to plot attacks beyond the reach of U.S. surveillance. In light of this, Snowden’s leak has indeed made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but does this justify the NSA’s chosen use of power? Since Snowden’s revelations, it has become evident that the NSA consistently uses their surveillance abilities to unjustified ends. One function of the NSA’s electronic data analysis is to find targets for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command to strike with lethal drone attacks. Many innocent civilians in middle-eastern countries have lost their lives as a result of this military sect’s reliance on the NSA’s data, rather than human correspondence. According to an anonymous former drone-operator, the victims of these attacks “might have been terrorists, or they could have been
Critics of Edward Snowden label him a traitor and a coward. They condemn him for irreparably harming government security operations and setting of a worldwide chain of events that weakened the American position on the world stage. While America now has blight on its records due to the leaks, the topic that should be addressed is should the whistle-blower, the man who uncovered and exposed the questionable and wrong activities, be blamed or should those who allowed the illegal and immoral activities be held accountable for what they started. Edward Snowden had the justification and conviction to do the correct thing and present the incriminating evidence straight to the public. When one takes in consideration everything that Snowden has lost because of his decision, there was little gain for him to make the immoral activities public. Snowden’s crime is breaching the trust of his government contract to expose egregious monitoring by the government on the American public. In an interview conducted by the Washington Post, Snowden speaks out about his goal in releasing the files: “All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,”
Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.
After September 11th, Americans looked to the government for protection and reassurance. However, they did not expect to find out thirteen years later that the government did this by using technology to spy on Americans, as well as other countries. George W. Bush began the policy shortly after the terrorist attack and Barack Obama continued it. There have been many confrontations over the years about the extent of the N.S.A.’s spying; however, the most recent whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, leaked information that caused much upset throughout America (EFF). It has also brought many people to question: is he a hero or a traitor?
Edward Snowden is considered by many to be a criminal, but there are others who firmly believe that Edward Snowden is a patriot, and rightfully so Edward Snowden is a hero to the American people and many abroad. The United States government has the responsibility to serve, protect and aid the American people, but sometimes the government and some of its classified documents every now and then get published and criticized. Edward Snowden had worked for multiple government agencies such as the CIA, NSA and prior to that an American contractor as a computer professional, and during his tenure at the NSA he had realized the grotesque and unprofessional ethics and violations of privacy against the American people, and so many innocent citizens
Edward Snowden was placed in a very difficult position. On one hand, he could follow the law but know he was letting unethical conduct continue, and on the other hand, breaking the law. Regardless of his decision, I guarantee he put great though into each choice and alternative.
Snowden would view his actions as right in according to the Deontology Duty Theory. The Duty Theory believes that an act is morally right if it in accord with a duty or obligations. With this said many would view Snowden as a Whistle Blower and Patriot, since he took action when he believed that it was his duty to reveal that N.S.A. was secretly invading the privacy of the people.
The ethical issues involving Edward Snowden’s case encompass key issues of morality. Snowden’s actions are to be interpreted as right or wrong based on the circumstances and personal reasoning. The preceding interpretation is this case in every ethical quandary. Once these issues are assimilated to the affected parties we begin to understand the larger picture of morality and ethical reasoning in Snowden’s case.