Ethical Dilemma: Edward Snowden's Actions and Whistle-blowing

This case study explores the values in conflict in Edward Snowden's actions, the harm caused, and the benefits of his actions. It discusses the ethical justification of Snowden's actions, weighing the competing values involved. It also considers the circumstances where whistle-blowing would be ethically ideal or prohibited.

Case Study

Table of Contents
1. What values are in conflict in this case? What harm did Snowden cause? What benefits did
his actions bring?.........................................................................................................................3
2. Do you agree that Snowden's actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited?
Why or why not? Make an argument by weighting the competing values in this case?.............3
3. If you were in Snowden's position, what would you have done and why?.............................3
4. Would you change your position if you knew that Snowden's leak would leads to a loss of
life among CIA operatives? What about if it would save lives?..................................................4
5. Is there a circumstances in which you think whistle-blowing would be ethically ideal? How
about ethically prohibited?...........................................................................................................4

1. What values are in conflict in this case? What harm did Snowden cause? What benefits did his
actions bring?
Values refers to the belief based on which an individual function, accumulate their life
experience and leads a stable life. Within this case study Instrumental values have been applied
as Snowden being whistle-blower has reflected personality traits like being brutally honest,
ethical and honest (Tsalikis and Fritzsche, 2013).
As Edward Snowden releases secret document to the press which exposed the actions
powerful people and made the news goes viral. These actions caused harmed to national secret as
it affected the secret data of country which is probably not safe for Ameruicans. Even Snowden
may have to face replications as government claims that his actions have violated the 1917
Espionage act. On contrary, the behaviour of Edward Snowden benefited the public by gaining
vital information. Thus, even after knowing negative circumstances he exposed confidential
information for the welfare of society.
2. Do you agree that Snowden's actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why
or why not? Make an argument by weighting the competing values in this case?
No, according to me the actions of Snowden were not ethically justified as he became
valuable mediator to bring out reality amongst people. Although being former CIA system
administrator he is not liable to expose the confidential information but he transmitted desirable
information to public which made him to become whistle-blower (Crane and et. al., 2019). But
prohibition of law acts as a threat for whole nation and illegal group or terrorist can access the
information. Such courageous actions leads to competing values which strive to bring flexibility
maintaining transparency fro public but prohibited the laws of economy.
3. If you were in Snowden's position, what would you have done and why?
If I were at Snowden's position then even I would too have transmitted the essential
information but through legal channels so that the national security does not gets affected. As
whistle blower is a significant practice that helps to reduce the chances of any misleading
performance. This determine the actions of Edward were desirable enough but needs to be more
cautious as transmitting of information in press conference can affect the national secrets of
country (DesJardins and McCall, 2014).

4. Would you change your position if you knew that Snowden's leak would leads to a loss of life
among CIA operatives? What about if it would save lives?
Leak of essential information is not only advantageous for internal public but also
external enemies can seek out vital information and affect the lives of people. This determine
that Snowden has right intention but his actions can cause negative impact. To deals with such
case I would prefer to gain the positions of generalist so that I transmitted essential information
only through legal channel. This automatically helps the citizen of country to gain information
and does not disclose national secrets (Pearson, 2017).
5. Is there a circumstances in which you think whistle-blowing would be ethically ideal? How
about ethically prohibited?
Yes, according to me Whistle-blowing is considered as a ethically ideal practice which
needs to function effectively in other to handled various misleading situation like fraud,
corruption, showcase misleading data, deceiving employees and so on. This helps to secure the
interest of both employer as well as employee in terms to carry out their actions effectively.
Similarly, the whistle blower needs to know about consequences of such act like Snowden took
desirable action but needs to be implemented effectively. As leakage of sensitive secret can
cause threat and lead to security issue (Stanwick and Stanwick, 2013). Thus, it is the
responsibility of manager or superior to inform the legal way to blow whistle and take
significant actions effectively.

REFERENCES
Books and Journal
Tsalikis, J. and Fritzsche, D. J., 2013. Business ethics: A literature review with a focus on
marketing ethics. In Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 337-
404). Springer, Dordrecht.
Crane, A. and et. al., 2019. Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in
the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, USA.
DesJardins, J. R. and McCall, J. J., 2014. Contemporary issues in business ethics. Cengage
Learning.
Pearson, R., 2017. Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the
idea of dialogue. In Public relations theory (pp. 111-131). Routledge.
Stanwick, P. and Stanwick, S. D., 2013. Understanding business ethics. Sage.