Dr X is a leading medical practitioner in a city. He has set up a charitable trust through which he plans to establish a super-speciality hospital in the city to cater to the medical needs of all sections of the society. Incidentally, that part of the State had been neglected over the years. The proposed hospital would be a boon for the region. You are heading the tax investigation agency of that region. During an inspection of the doctor’s clinic, your officers have found out some major irregularities. A few of them are substantial which had resulted in considerable withholding of tax that should be paid by him now. The doctor is cooperative. He undertakes to pay the tax immediately. However, there are certain other deficiencies in his tax compliance which are purely technical in nature. If these technical defaults are pursued by the agency, considerable time and energy of the doctor will be diverted to issues which are not so serious, urgent or even helpful to the tax collection process. Further, in all probability, it will hamper the prospects of the hospital coming up. There are two options before you:
1) Taking a broader view, ensure substantial tax compliance and ignore defaults that are merely technical in nature.
2) Pursue the matter strictly and proceed on all fronts, whether substantial or merely technical.
As the head of the tax agency, which course of action will you opt and why? (250 words)

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2018

20 Marks

The Snowden case presents a profound conflict between legal compliance and moral duty, highlighting the tension between state security and public transparency. His disclosure of mass surveillance programs sparked global debate about the limits of governmental power and individual conscience in democratic societies.

Stakeholders

Primary Stakeholders: Edward Snowden, US Government, American citizens, global public
Secondary Stakeholders: Intelligence agencies, media organizations, international allies, civil liberties groups

Ethical Justification Analysis

Arguments Supporting Ethical Justification:

Utilitarian perspective: Greatest good achieved by exposing unconstitutional surveillance affecting millions of citizens
Kantian duty ethics: Moral imperative to treat citizens as ends, not means for surveillance
Democratic accountability: Public's right to know about programs conducted in their name
Constitutional violations: Programs potentially violated Fourth Amendment privacy protections
Whistleblower tradition: Historical precedent of civil disobedience for greater moral good

Arguments Against Ethical Justification:

Rule of law: Legal frameworks exist for internal reporting through proper channels
National security: Disclosure potentially compromised ongoing operations and intelligence methods
Democratic process: Elected representatives had oversight mechanisms in place
Consequentialist harm: Damaged international relations and intelligence cooperation
Procedural alternatives: Could have pursued internal whistleblower protections first

Weighing Competing Values:

The case balances transparency vs security, individual conscience vs collective authority, and immediate harm vs long-term democratic health. While Snowden's legal violation is clear, the virtue ethics framework suggests his courage in prioritizing public welfare demonstrates moral character.

Personal Position:

Snowden's actions were ethically justified despite legal prohibition. The magnitude of constitutional violations and absence of effective internal remedies created a moral emergency requiring extraordinary disclosure. Democratic societies must protect space for conscientious resistance when institutional safeguards fail.

"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion."

Answer Length

Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.

In just 60 sec