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 (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