More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing and contrasting utilitarianism and deontological ethics
Comparing and contrasting utilitarianism and deontological ethics
Kant theory essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Deontological perspective of sate surveillance
The deontological ethical system, ethical formalism, articulates that what is considered moral is the motive or intent of the actor and not the consequence of the action (Pollock, 2012 pg 26). Philosopher Immanuel Kant states that the only thing that is good is good will, if a person does an act from good will; it can be considered moral action even if it results in bad consequences. Kant states that you should treat people as ends in themselves and not as only means to an end. In order to examine if governmental monitoring is ethical from a Kantian perspective, an examination of the why government is monitoring its citizens must be discussed.
One of the foremost reasons the government is monitoring the populace is to discover those people in the general public that are involved in major crimes or terrorism activities. Many supporters of state surveillance are of the view that in order to discover those people involved in major terrorist or criminal activities the government must actively monitor all of its citizens through the use of surveillance. Since the government casts such a broad net of monitoring, they are using citizens as a means to an end. Whistleblower Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified NSA flies that expose mass surveillance operations carried out by the NSA (Greenwald, 2013)
One of the many details shown is that mass surveillance has not had an apparent impact on the prevention of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Most of the information gathered has not been used to impede a terrorist attack. Surveillance does not protect the rights to life, property and so on from being violated by terrorists. However it gives the citizen...
... middle of paper ...
... individuals, but just as means to an end. Utilitarianism on the other hand state surveillance is ethical since the protection of citizens outweigh that of privacy. From the natural law, social contract standpoint mass surveillance is unethical and a violation of our social contract especially the right to privacy. Relativism have an effect on property crime, but not on incidences of violence. While others are of the view that surveillance does have befits, the unrestrained use of state surveillance has lead to the suppression press freedom. Ethical relativism if there is not a terrorist attack or the rule fails to prevent an attack, then the rule leads to a lot of negative results as the privacy of the citizens of the United States have been violated for no gain in protection. And determining which of these cases will occur in the future is difficult to determine.
Penenberg closes his essay by mentioning that the surveillance is not only used to watch the citizens but also for citizens to keep an eye on the government. Through his organization, relevant information, and professional tone, Penenberg creates an effective
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
Terrorism is very real, it has just recently happened again at Ohio State University. “He urged America "to stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah," a term for Muslim people at large. "By Allah, we will not let you sleep unless you give peace to the Muslims," he wrote. "You will not celebrate or enjoy any holiday" (CNN. Cable News Network). People like this will remain a problem no matter what ulterior motive the Domestic Surveillance has, and the only way to stop it is to simply monitor the people so when we find a threat we can abolish it as fast as
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. Now, reforms are being pressed against the government’s throat as citizens fight for their rights. However, American citizens are slammed with the counterargument of the innocent forte the NSA tries to pass off in claims of good doing, such as how the NSA prevents terrorism. In fear of privacy violations, limitations should be put on the NSA to better protect the privacy of our honest citizens.
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
The recent terrorists attacks of 9/11 has brought security to an all-time high, and more importantly brought the NSA to the limelight. Facts don 't change however, terrorist attacks are not common as history has shown. So what has domestic surveillance actually protected? There are no records to date that they have stopped any harm from being caused. If it is well known by every American that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with the intention of harming use these devices to talk about their heinous acts? The real criminals are smarter than this, and it has shown with every attack in our history. Petty acts of crime are not what domestic surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has been happening for decades before any electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spy on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Check and Balances? that until Americans set free the idea of national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security will never happen as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of safety should not be
“Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable, a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity”(Jeffrey Rosen). Where were you on September 11, 2001? Do you remember the world before this tragic incident? Throughout history, the United States has adopted forms of legislation with the intention of improving national security. From prohibition, to gun laws, the outcomes of these legislations have not always been good.
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
The American government used to be able to keep the people in happy ignorance to the fact that they watch every move they make. After certain revelations of people like Edward Snowden, the public knows the extent of the government spying. On June 5, 2013 Edward Snowden leaked documents of the NSA to the Guardian (The Guardian 2). The whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the world how the American government collects information like cell phone metadata, Internet history, emails, location from phones, and more. President Obama labeled the man a traitor because he showed the world the illegal acts the NSA performs on US citizens (Service of Snowden 1). The government breached the people’s security, and now the people are afraid because everyone is aware of how the US disapproves of people who do not agree with their programs. Obama said that these programs find information about terrorists living in the US, but he has lit...
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
Along with Privacy and security comes the issue of terrorism, Constitutional rights, and Prisoners of War (POW). The privacy vs security debate has two sides to it. Many think that it has influenced governmental interaction with citizens. Sometimes the law focuses on the wrong interests. Just as security cameras are made for thief’s, there come along violations within a person’s workspace or personal life. Privacy emerged early on including Jewish and Roman laws safeguarding against surveillance. Once populations began to grow citizens around the world started filing complaints about noise and unlawful search and seizures. Security and Privacy become an internationally growing issue that affected the world. Security is known as a sort of Independence from danger. Privacy is a freedom from the Undesirable. “He noticed that the needle on his gas gauge was getting low and decides to pull over. As he walks into the gas station he pays for the gas with his credit card, steals a pack of cigarettes and a newspaper without the clerk knowing. B Horton proceeds out the doors and recognizes a security camera as he walks to his car. Later he is contacted and tried for theft. Some believe the camera was an invasion of his privacy but others say that Horton took from society” Webster 21) In America this was and still is a serious issue. The founders saw it coming and implanted laws against home invasions based on national security or to protect others. The fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights is one plan of action that the founding fathers implemented into the United States Constitution to give people a sense of privacy from law enforcement. Also the Fifth Amendment placed a specific procedure on how police go about arresting an individual. ...