McCloskey defended his idea of “Lawbreakers
have no genuine right to privacy” (Pg. 6, The Virtuous Spy) with a pretty good
example. The example he used was a typical affair between an underage girl and
an older man, and the father sought it right to spy on them because he
suspected that the older man was out to seduce his daughter. McCloskey stated
that the father couldn’t be accused of invasion of privacy because, the older
man’s actions “ ‘had put that area of his life outside the area of privacy’
“(Pg. 6, The Virtuous Spy). The main right the lawbreakers forfeit is the
right of privacy. Since he stepped out of his own area of privacy to invade
that of someone else, he is guilty of invading someone else’s privacy thus
forfeiting his own right of privacy. However, I do not fully agree with
McCloskey’s statement “lawbreakers have no genuine right to privacy”. As Allen
states, “wrongdoers do have some legitimate expectation of privacy” (Pg. 7, The
Virtuous Spy). These “expectation of privacy” deals with other things outside
the bounds of what ever they did wrong. The example Allen used was
“relationships with their therapist and lawyers” (Pg. 6, The Virtuous Spy). If
a father is investigating a suspected older man dating his daughter who is a minor,
the father has no right to do stuff such as breaking and entering into the
suspects home and raid their belongings to find out what their day to day
activities are. These actions aren’t ethical. An example Allen gives us
is “Just because someone has robbed millions from a bank, it does not follow
that any effective means of extracting proof will be warranted--torture, for
example, would be unethical” “(Pg. 7, The Virtuous Spy). There are limits
to how much one can spy. Only a certain amount can be permitted.
The reason why I do not agree with
McCloskey is because everyone has the right to some sort of privacy. If a
criminal committed a crime, he has a right for the details for the case to
remain private because if any details were to get out to the public, it may
affect how his trial may play out or he might be prosecuted even more. Also
privacy may be deemed as a form of property, and they would people would try
their best to defend their property, especially if they struggled for it in
some way.
Hi Cyan! I think you're drawing some important connections in this revision. But I'm still not sure what your justification is. You say that you agree "because everyone has the right to some sort of privacy." Why? What confers this right on people? Where does this right come from? Remember what we talked about last week concerning rights--what sort of right is this?
ReplyDelete