Model Answer

Introduction

The case of Edward Snowden, a former CIA administrator who leaked classified government documents exposing surveillance programs, raises complex ethical questions. While Snowden’s actions violated the Espionage Act, he argued that his moral obligation to inform the public justified his whistleblowing. This analysis will weigh competing values: privacy, national security, government transparency, and individual conscience.

Body

a. Arguments in Favor of Ethical Justification

1. Whistleblower Duty: Snowden believed he had a moral obligation to expose government wrongdoing. Whistleblowing serves to protect public interest and highlight abuses of power. As noted by experts, “whistleblowers play a critical role in exposing government misconduct” (Source: Government Accountability Project).
2. Government Transparency: His revelations sparked a global discourse on privacy and civil liberties, emphasizing the need for accountability in a democratic society. Transparency is essential for democratic governance, as highlighted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which states that “citizens must know the extent of government surveillance.”
3. Public Interest: By disclosing surveillance practices, Snowden aimed to defend the public’s right to privacy, prompting necessary discussions on the balance between security and civil liberties.

b. Arguments Against Ethical Justification

1. Violation of the Law: Snowden’s actions constituted a clear breach of the Espionage Act. Critics argue that “lawbreaking undermines the rule of law,” which is fundamental to societal stability (Source: Brookings Institution).
2. National Security Risks: His leaks potentially compromised sensitive intelligence operations. National security is paramount, and critics assert that “revealing classified methods can endanger lives and national interests.”
3. Legal Channels: Opponents argue that Snowden should have used established internal mechanisms to address his concerns. Whistleblower protections exist within the intelligence community, which could have allowed him to raise issues without breaking the law.

Conclusion

In weighing these competing values, one must consider the context and consequences of Snowden’s actions. While his intentions to protect privacy and promote transparency resonate with many, the legality of his actions and the potential risks to national security cannot be overlooked. Ultimately, the ethical justification hinges on the balance one places on individual conscience versus the rule of law and national security.