Ethical Analysis of Edward Snowden's Whistleblowing

This report provides an ethical analysis of Edward Snowden's whistleblowing actions, discussing the values, harms, and benefits involved. It explores whether whistleblowing is ethically ideal and concludes with a summary of the findings.

Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Values in the conflicts and various harm caused by Snowden and benefits of actions...............1
Snowden action were ethical in manner......................................................................................2
Snowden position.........................................................................................................................2
Change position when knew that Snowden’s leak would lead to a loss of life among CIA
operatives or if it would save life................................................................................................3
Whistleblowing would be ethically ideal....................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Whistleblowing can be defined as the action of business members either past or present
discloses data on legal and unethical practices within company to internal and external parties
who has guts to take revert action. The main aim of the whistle blowing to prevent wrong deed
that is going to occur. It is an ethical action because it has moral obligation to resist critical harm
to others. It is unlawful practice but ethically is right.
The brief study of the report will study about Edward Snowden who discloses
confidential government document to the press media about their illegal work. He justified his
whistle-blowing that he had responsibility to aware public about government illegal work. So,
many arguments occurred for his action which will cover in report.
Values in the conflicts and various harm caused by Snowden and benefits of actions
There are various values that are identifying in the case study of Snowden such as
Edward by informing public about policies of government and surveillance. So, it was against
the legal laws but by informing about clear policies and program of government it helps people
of U.S to know about what it done in their name and which things that government is performing
against them. The case study states that values and ethics of Edward force it to inform public
about injustice in order to ensure health and safety of people of US that are facing injustice.
Snowden has not abided to legal laws and was not feared to be punishment for stealing data of
government (MacCormack, 2016). Therefore it can be stated that it were its ethics and believe
that force him to steal data that represent government was involved in wrong practices so the
people should be aware of such injustice practices. Snowden act has caused to security and
privacy of legal laws and government regulation by stealing crucial and important information.
Various crime or harms that Snowed has caused to country are disclosure of national defence
information, theft or stealing of government properties and has used unauthorized manner to
communicate information to large number of people. As per New York times he was an hero but
for ED Morrissey argued that he was not hero as it had not use legal channel to inform people
about government practices thus it was crime as he has harmed communication means and legal
channels to be used to inform people ( GERSTEIN JOSH, 2014). Therefore all such harm to
security and property, crucial information and medium of communication caused by Snowden
were not appropriate and all were against legal of government. It action helps people to know
1

about reality of government and various wrong practices that they are performing and the way it
effects people. Snowden by informing and creating awareness among people about such
practices is able to close down such unjust practice. Therefore it was the person that takes dare to
inform large number of people about injustice practice that may harm them adversely. Thus, all
such benefits were provided by Snowed action to public so that they can improve their living.
Snowden action were ethical in manner
As per my opinion Snowed action were ethical justified despite they were against legal laws
as if he has not taken steps to stolen data it would never able to inform people about wrong
practices of government. His stealing of data has helped people in raising their voices against
injustice practice performance by government. As per Jesselyn Radack of government
Accountability project also stated that Snowden by stating people about information has done
good for public. I also think the same as various steps and initiatives taken by Snowden helps the
people a lot despite they were against law. As people should be aware what government is trying
to do while using their names and what are the things and practices that are adopted by them
against public safety and security (Twiss, 2018). Steps and action taken by Snowden were
against the legal laws but since laws itself was injustice and unconstitutional than he was write to
take action to steal data. It shows his ethic that he has not stolen data for unethical practice and
behaviour but for social benefits of people so that they cannot be harmed from unjust practice of
government. As per my view various steps taken by Snowden to stolen data was ethical and good
for all people living in society as it helps in protection of their safety. It was a great service that
Snowden has done by making aware people about injustice practices (Whistle-Blowers Deserve
Protection Not Prison. 2013). Thus, as per my view he is an hero that have taken steps by
accepting various challenges and punishment that it had to faced because he has stolen data and
harm to security of country. Therefore he should not be punished as such people are necessary to
ensure safety and security of people by informing them about injustice of practices. At the same
time he should report information to legal channels rather than leaking data about behaviour. I
accept that he has harm social security and government assets and properties but whatever he has
done for well being of people so it was a good steps taken by him to ensure safety and security of
public.
Snowden position
Suppose I was at Snowden position I would also like to do same thing as it’s is about
2

welfare, safety and security of society. If I know that government are performing wrong and
injustice practices and I would also try to collect data and inform it to public through legal
channels so that they are aware of such practices and can take legal action. As my ethics and
valued forced me to steal and collect data that states various practices of government and helps
in improving living standard of people. If I resist to do all such things that I would never able
to help people living in the society and injustice practices of government would be continued. It
was against my ethics and values as despite I know the trust I was not able inform people and
make them aware of social injustice by their government. Thus, despite I have to break legal
laws such as Snowden by stealing I would also ready to do so as all such practices are ultimate
for benefit of people and society (Murphy, 2018). Laws are rules are made by government that
himself is performing in just practice and harming people lining in society. But I would choose
legal channel to inform people about various practices of government as it would be
appropriate and correct method to create awareness among people. Therefore, If I would at his
position, I would do same thing for benefit of people living in the society and for ethics and
values of my life.
Change position when knew that Snowden’s leak would lead to a loss of life among CIA
operatives or if it would save life
If I knew that Snowden’s leak could lead loss of life among CIA operatives then definitely, I
changed my position. The main purpose of disclosing information to inform people about
government’s violence of privacy and aware them government is injustice and unconstitutional
(Murphy, 2018). To change position instead of Snowden’s is that people life keeps matter for
me because they work for our society who has goal to give high quality services and keeps away
overall rules. My ethics value encouraged me to steal information which government would use
for private gain but my legal value forced me to save life of innocent people who was not
culpable but they forcefully involved in the unjust governmental practices. My primary duty to
update people about injustice so that their living standard improves. On the other hand, another
responsibility to keep people safe, didn’t create any harsh circumstance so they hey had to loss
their life’s.
In other condition when I knew that Snowden’s leak would save life among CIA operatives then
I would choose his position. According to me to leak such kind information which could
improves living standards of people and didn’t harm for life. I would do same thing as Snowden
3

did. Because I thought if I prevent to do such kind things then I couldn’t help to people who lives
in society to keep faith that government was in their favour. On the other hand, injustice and
unconstitutional governmental practices could be continued which was against my ethics and
value. So, I would do same thing as Snowden did (O’Leary, 2017). If I had to go against law
then I ready to do all like stealing and breaking law because there was no harm for life. So, I
changed my position in both case if I got different situation as I described above.
Whistleblowing would be ethically ideal
Snowden stole information from governmental document and leaked into press media
that government would do wrong or their practices are illegal. In that state most of the people
favoured his action while other government employees said that whistleblowing was wrong.
Snowden justified his whistleblowing; he said his action was ethical. In addition, Snowden said
governmental practices was wrong, so it was his duty to inform people about wrong deed which
would happen with them by unjust governmental practices (Reamer, 2019). So, I think whatever
circumstances was occurred whistleblowing would be ethically ideal. The reason behind was that
if Snowden choose legal channel defiantly it took long time to convey message to people that
governmental practices would harmful. It might be possible this information would never
disclose that government would do unjust practices against public. I would consider
whistleblowing in ethical practices because Snowden didn’t have purpose for private gain. He
just wanted to help people by disclosing unjust governmental practices.
It is ethically prohibited in some cases such as when people life comes in danger zone by
leaking confidential information or have to pay high cost that leads whistle blowing in unethical
practices (Twiss, 2018). Otherwise whistle blowing is considered ethically ideal.
CONCLUSION
The brief study of the report has been concluded case of Snowden who stole confidential
information of governmental document. This report has been described about whistle blowing
that it considered in ethical practice es or not. Values in the conflicts and various harm caused by
Snowden and benefits of actions can be summarized in report. It also has been discussed that
Snowdon’s action were ethically justified while legally prohibited but he gave priorities of their
ethical values. I choose Snowdon position because according to me he did right if I supposed to
his position, I did same cation as he did because ethically it was right. The brief study has been
summarized that whistle blowing was ethically ideal because it has aim to inform public about
4

wrong deed which could happen with then through government or others.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Aldrich, R.J. and Moran, C.R., 2019. ‘Delayed Disclosure’: National Security, Whistle-Blowers
and the Nature of Secrecy. Political Studies, 67(2), pp.291-306.
Chapman, R. ed., 2019. Ethics in public service for the new millennium. Routledge.
Cintya, L. and Yustina, A.I., 2019. From Intention to Action in Whistleblowing: Examining
Ethical Leadership and Affective Commitment of Accountants in
Indonesia. International Journal of Business, 24(4), pp.412-433.
MacCormack, P., 2016. Posthuman ethics: Embodiment and cultural theory. Routledge.
McCloskey, D. N., 2017. Wealth, Commerce, and Philosophy: Foundational Thinkers and
Business Ethics. University of Chicago Press.
Murphy, N., 2018. Anglo-American postmodernity: Philosophical perspectives on science,
religion, and ethics. Routledge.
O’Leary, R., 2017. The 2016 John Gaus Lecture: The New Guerrilla Government: Are Big Data,
Hyper Social Media and Contracting Out Changing the Ethics of Dissent?. PS: Political
Science & Politics. 50(1). pp.12-22.
Reamer, F.G., 2019. The Ethics of Whistle Blowing.
Twiss, S. B., 2018. Explorations in global ethics: Comparative religious ethics and interreligious
dialogue. Routledge.
Online
Whistle-Blowers Deserve Protection Not Prison. 2013., [Online]. Available Through:<
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-nsa-leak-case-a-whistle-
blower-or-a-criminal/whistle-blowers-deserve-protection-not-prison>.
GERSTEIN JOSH Holder talks Snowden plea deal. 2014. [Online]. Available Through:<
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/eric-holder-edward-snowden-plea-102530>.
6

7