When Chelsea Manning released confidential information to WikiLeaks and the aftermath, there were many ethical issues surrounding it. However, arguably, the most central ethical issue was whether Manning was in the right or not to release confidential information. This issue will later be discussed using the theories of Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
Chelsea Manning (then Bradley Manning) was an Army Private who released more than 700,000 classified documents of US government information to WikiLeaks in 2010. Most notably, the documents showed that the US did not investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and murder by Iraqi police. A US Army helicopter had also attacked 12 people in 2007, which included two Reuters journalists,
…show more content…
and Saudi Arabian leaders asking the US government to use its military against Iran (Ward, 2017).
After the release of the information, Manning was arrested. The court was martialed by the US military, and Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. In 2017, as one of his final acts as President, former President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence, releasing her from prison.
Classic utilitarianism believes that the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. The consequences matter only where they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. The act is acceptable if it produces the most happiness (Rachels, 2015, p. 111). Rachels (2015, p. 111) also states that when assessing the consequences and individual’s happiness, they all get equal consideration; no one is more important than the other. According to classical
…show more content…
utilitarianism, happiness is “pleasure”, where all the mental states feel good (Rachels, 2015, p. 112). With Manning accepting responsibility for her actions, a consequence would be that there would likely be more people supporting her, as she is not fleeing after releasing the confidential information. Manning took and has taken responsibility for her actions, even at the risk of getting life imprisonment. In relation to the happiness of this consequence, there may be some who were happy that Manning came forward and made the world aware of the atrocities that were occurring, and the way the US government was handling it. They may also be happy, as it would push the public to push the US government to fix the atrocities that the information revealed. But there would be many that would be unhappy with the US government’s involvement in the injustices, and many US governmental officials would be very unhappy with the release of confidential information as it made the US look very inadequate. Overall, in respect to utilitarianism, this act would not be accepted, as the unhappiness of people would override the happiness of the others. In respect of punishment, utilitarian’s believe that that “punishment can be justified only when the good outweighs the bad.” (Rachels, 2015, p.
141). This is because punishment can provide comfort and gratification to the victims and their families. People may also feel very unsafe out in public, if they know that their offender is still free (Rachels, 2015, p. 141). However, Manning’s case is unusual in concerning punishment. Whistleblowers are not common, and the files released have, in a sense, only created embarrassment to the US. There has also been very little evidence to show that Manning’s actions have directly caused the deaths of American servicemen and women (Alex, 2017). As such, there have been no victims to provide comfort and gratification to Manning’s imprisonment. Utilitarian’s also believe that punishment reduces crime by deterring would-be criminals. Someone who is tempted to commit a crime may not do so, as they know they might be punished (Rachels, 2015, p. 142). Again, whistleblowing is not a common act; although, the next high profile case was with Edward Snowden, who sought and gained refuge in Russia after releasing confidential files. The files released were ones that some consider to be even more sensitive than the files that Manning had released (Zavis, 2017). Altogether, there have not been any good that has outweighed the bad that occurred after Manning released the confidential information. As such, utilitarian’s would not be able to justify
the punishment that Manning had suffered. The categorical imperative is the principle that Kantian ethics relies on when it comes to morality. It states to “act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Rachels, 2015, p.130). This means that in order to figure out whether an act is morally right or wrong, ask what rule you would be following if you actually did it. This rule becomes the “maxim” of the act; and then consider whether you would be willing for the maxim to become a universal law, in the sense that should it be followed by everyone at all times. If yes, then the maxim is acceptable, but if not, then the act should be forbidden (Rachels, 2015, p. 130). Concerning Manning’s action of releasing the confidential information, but accepting responsibility for it, the rule would be: If an individual takes confidential information that is not theirs and releases it, then they should take responsibility for it. If this became a universal rule, then anyone who did release information that was not his or hers would have to take responsibility for it, and possibly suffer a punishment for doing so. This rule should be universal, as people should take responsibility for releasing property that was not theirs to release, even if they felt a responsibility to do so. It is also your social duty to take responsibility for your actions. Therefore, the act of Manning taking and releasing the confidential information would be acceptable to a Kantian theorist if it were a universal rule. Manning knowingly took and released information that was the US government’s property, as she felt a responsibility to the public for them to know what was happening, and believed that the US government should not be keeping it a secret (Ward, 2017). Manning also accepted responsibility for her actions, and acknowledges that no one but herself directed her to do it (Ward, 2017). Kantian ethics believes that punishment should be governed by two principles. The first one is that they believe people should be punished simply because they have committed crimes and for no other reason. The second principle is that the punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime (Rachels, 2015, p. 143). In regards to the first principle, Kant theorists would agree and approve of Manning’s sentencing to prison, as she had committed illegal activities, and as such was charged with 17 out of 22 convictions, which violates the Espionage Act (Ward, 2017). The second principle for punishment is one that could be debated by both sides. On one hand, many believe that the sentence to 35 years was proportionate to Manning’s crime, as she could have put many lives at American servicemen and women’s lives at risk; as well as jeopardizing US national security, in the sense that it could show US enemies how the US conducts war and diplomacy (Ward, 2017). However, on the other hand, there has been little evidence of the releasement of confidential information that has directly caused the deaths of American servicemen and women (Ward, 2017). Some also believe that her sentencing was too harsh, and not proportionate to the crime. This is shown during Manning’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, where her lawyers stated that Manning’s sentence is “perhaps the most unjust sentence in the history of the military justice system… No whistleblower in American history has been sentenced this harshly” (Swaine, 2016). Especially when comparing the case to David Peraeus, a retired military commander and CIA Director, who only received two years probation, after admitting to giving classified information to his biographer in exchange for sex (Swaine, 2016). Overall, when deciding whether the punishment Manning suffered was according to Kantian ethics, it is likely that Kantian theorists believe that the second principle does not apply to Manning, as her punishment was not proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes. This is due to the fact that no one had been directly killed by the releasing of the information (Ward, 2017), and no other whistleblower has received a sentence similar to Manning. Despite Kantian theorists disagreeing with the second principle in relation to Manning, there is a high probability that they would agree with the first principle as Manning had committed a crime by releasing the confidential information to WikiLeaks. The releasing of confidential information belonging to the US government is a strong ethical issue surrounding Chelsea Manning, one that Utilitarianism would not agree with; whereas, Kantian ethics would believe that the act was acceptable as it could become a universal law. In respects to the punishment aspect with Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, it is likely that Utilitarian’s believe that Manning’s punishment was not justifiable as the bad outweighed the good. It is more difficult to say with Kantian ethics, as the theorists would strongly support the first principle of punishment, but it is likely that they would disagree with the punishment Manning had received.
Kevin M. Gallagher. 2013. Freedom of the Press Foundation. Glenn Greenwald, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'. Video file posted on YouTube on June 9, 2013.
Julian Assange’s website, WikiLeaks made global headlines in the last few years. Assange started out by leaking documents he had acquired over the internet about banks in various European countries. Chelsea Manning, Army Private at the time stationed in Iraq joined up with Assange and delivered to him thousands of classified documents that Manning, a military intelligence analyst had access to. Manning was in contact with a former hacker named Adrian Lamo who he asked advice of, advice whether or not he should leak the documents. Manning going against Lamo’s advice of not leaking the documents caused Manning to be arrested after Lamo turned him in for the leak. This was a major blow for Wikileaks who had just lost their major source of confidential documents from the United States government. Since 9/11, the United States Government has realized that information needs to be shared among intelligence agencies in order to thwart terrorist attacks. A side effect however is that information is no longer on a need-to-know basis which made it possible for Manning to leak it all out. After receiving this confidential information, Assange began to make this information available to media outlets. Assange’s actions were morally and ethically incorrect. He should not have leaked so many classified documents especially without redacting the names of informants whose lives could have been in danger. These documents leaked by Manning to Assange were meant strictly for the eyes and ears of those who were privileged to the information, not for the front page of the New York Times. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange threatened global security as they willingly and knowingly put lives of thousands at risk by allowing the bad guys an opportunity to a...
Cassidy, John. "Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero." The New Yorker. N.p., 10 June 2013. Web. 15 Feb.
If someone broke the law trying to help the American keep their constitutional rights, would you consider them a hero or a criminal? Well that’s exactly what’s going on today with Edward Snowden. In 2013 Edward Snowden leaked classified information to the American people, information that shined a light on the dark things that the U.S government was doing behind closed doors. He revealed that the U.S government has been going against the constitution and taking away our freedoms. The U.S government has been taking away our freedoms however, Snowden is being called the criminal. Thesis Statement here.
While the words Traitor and Hero are easy to define and understand it is the perspective of the viewer and society they exist within that gives the words relevance. A Traitor to one may be a Hero to another. In this Essay the researcher hopes to demonstrate that Edward Snowden is both a Hero and a Traitor.
Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.
Greenwald, Glenn, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras. “Edward Snowden: The Whistleblower behind the NSA Surveillance Revelations.” Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 11 June 2013. Web. 18 May. 2014.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the extent of the N.S.A breaches of American privacy and in doing so, became ostracized by the media and barred from freely reentering America, his home country.
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
Journalist or Terrorist Julian Assange, an Australian editor, activist, journalist and publisher, launched the WikiLeaks website in the year 2006. From that moment, the site spiraled rapidly into the limelight all over the world. It then came to be known as the most powerful whistle-blowing and also the most scandalous “media” in the online world. WikiLeaks profans and violates the right of privacy, right of accountability and confidentiality among Information and data sharing also it has a negative impact on governments, private sectors or businesses and also individuals, there is also a big question of accountability. Right of privacy, right of accountability and confidentiality are some of the rights that you acquire being a citizen of the country and when these rights are violated it is an offence.
Many people have mixed feelings about how they should differentiate Edward Snowden as a hero or a traitor. It is true what he had done was unjust and could have been handled another way without all the drama and getting nicknamed traitor by many and hero by few. His act on the NSA forced him into making a deal with Russia to stay at an asylum for a year, because some people in Russia believed in what he had done and did not doubt him unlike some people who thought of Snowden as a traitor to the government. There has been many polls, articles and interviews on Edward Snowden and how people thinks about his act of “exposing” the NSA for spying into the citizens personal life. Some may differ with Snowden by saying, what the NSA is doing is to protect the pe...
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
It is reasonable to argue that, governmental institutions or people with authority are subject to withhold a great deal of information from society. Many may argue that secrets are kept to ensure the safety of the nation. Thus, upholding the governmental duty of protecting the nation against possible threats. On the other hand, many believe that secrets may exist which violate our constitutional rights. Over the last year, Edward Snowden, has made headline news for leaking sensitive governmental information to the press. Edward Snowden is a 29-year-old high school drop-out, who was a tech specialist for the National Security Association. Snowden had discovered and later exposed the NSA for monitoring the nations e-mails, phone calls, and internet searches. As the allegations spread like wild fire, Edward Snowden sought asylum in Russia for one year. Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens.
The Controversy of Wikileaks: Right to Free Speech versus Right to Privacy Wikileaks creates a great amount of discussion on the private information it releases to the public. Not only does it cause a debate over the content of the site, but also many other issues it raises; the newspaper articles presented add to the ongoing controversy of the Wikileaks site. The argument of whether Wikileaks has the right to reveal certain private information or not creates the biggest controversy; the discussion comes down to personal privacy rights versus First Amendment rights.