preview

What Is The Moral Of 1984 By George Orwell: Suspicion-Less Surveillance

Better Essays

“Suspicion-less surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%.” This quote was said by Edward Snowden, a famous whistleblower who was a former employee of the NSA. His widely known revelations revealed that the Unites States, the supposed utopian country, is becoming corrupt through mass surveillance. With that in mind, the USFG (United States Federal Government) surveils its citizens in order to uphold national security but abuses that power, defying people’s natural right of privacy, leading to totalitarianism, and decreasing the value of life.
Nonetheless, many people have the belief that the United States needs to put more emphasis on our national security measures, such as mass …show more content…

The people will continually have no limits on what they can say or do and the central government will get the idea that they can put as much of their authority where it is feasible. In Orwell’s novel, this was used as a warning to society that conducting constant mass surveillance would lead to a society where “[Big Brother] is everywhere” which is immoral because it created a state of constant distress (Golbeck 64). Although it is 32 years after 1984, what everyone considered outrageous in Orwell’s book became reality with the USFG being Big Brother. The federal government is acquiring more people with vast amounts of knowledge that are able to create and/or use devices that are far more advanced than the equipment that is offered to the public. This gives the state an increase in power over the community which will benefit them in their mass surveillance process. Permitting constant watching of the people gives the state absolute power. Giving a body total control has been proven tyrannical because it will take advantage of the power which will make the government focus more on the central government than on running an efficient society. The government will eventually get more ideas on how to only benefit themselves instead of the country as a whole due to the lack of interest of the well-being of the people since their …show more content…

Life is more about the quality than it is about the quantity. Yet, conducting mass surveillance turns people into matters of paranoia who have no sense in individuality since they were not “happy with the toll that [the] counter surveillance techniques had taken on [their] psyche” (Golbeck 86). Deontology is shown to be more vital in this and any situation in comparison to utilitarianism. It would not matter if there was a lot of useless people in the world. Everybody would have no sense in individuality which would give them no motivation to work or get anything done in life. No drive to work for the benefit of the society would create the inevitability of societal shut down. With that in mind, there is no point of living if there is no “privacy and true autonomy” (Golbeck 86). The community will gain a sense of sycophancy where there is no individuality. Without individuality, there would be no reason to live because one no longer lives for oneself but for the masses. The importance of protecting the individual affects the society as a whole. People within the society are in the perpetual motion of conflicting with one another. Even so, there is a limit until one can invade the privacy of the other. A society without privacy safeguards would be tyrannical. When it comes to protecting the people’s rights, the society will prevent themselves from getting too

Get Access