For
my final ethical project, I’d like to discuss similarities and differences
between Edward Snowden’s release of NSA information and Socrates’s
philosophical views and eventual death in 399 B.C. Some argue Snowden’s escape
from the US Government is an act of cowardice, while others see it as a heroic
act of defiance. Their persistent questioning of authority and public figures
led one to death, the other to flee persecution. One considered fleeing to be
contrary to his moral principle; the other believes fleeing is necessary to
safeguard civil liberties.
Over
twenty five hundred years ago, Athenian jurors charged Socrates of corrupting
the youth and impiety then decided to put him to death. His death was a result
of asking too many philosophical questions, which at the time was considered to
be a bit on the heretical side. But, the form of democracy found in Athens has
been cited repeatedly as an indirect cause of Socrates’ death because it
sanctioned the unbridled sovereignty of the people over individual freedom. And
so, it is perhaps surprising that, according to Plato, when Socrates’ friend
Crito came to persuade Socrates to escape from prison and go into exile,
Socrates was adamant that he should accept Athens death sentence. Even though
Socrates did not care about the opinion of the many and would rather die having
spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live, he refused to
escape because he thought the state would be destroyed if he acted against it.
While
Socrates felt compelled to accept the State’s wrong decision, Snowden on the
other hand has not and instead opted to flee from persecution. You can ask Snowden
the question Socrates asked Crito two and a half thousand years ago: can a
state survive and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no
power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals? Socrates believed that
if every individual acted according to his own moral code, the state would disintegrate
into madness. In the New York Times, David Brooks paints Snowden in the very
same light: Snowden is symbolic of the loosening of social bands and the
atomization of society. He is a libertarian, a Ron Paul supporter, who betrayed
the cause of open government.
Acquiring
classified information to endanger U.S. troops across the world, while aiding
U.S. enemies, is the definition of treason. Snowden couldn’t help but know that
his actions would lead to these outcomes. And for that reason it is beyond
dispute that Snowden, regardless of whether or not some of his disclosures had
any merit, has betrayed the United States and his fellow citizens. I believe
Socrates would also agree, and wouldn’t the honorable course of action be for
Snowden be for him to return voluntarily to his own country, and answer the
charges against him in open court? Though many of his defenders claim he might
be mistreated before trial, despite everything, I could respect Snowden if he
had the courage to give an account of his actions in a court of law as Socrates
did. Snowden could still rescue something of his integrity and dignity by
returning to the U.S. Having presented himself as decent and morally- concerned
man, of whom he has strayed so far that in the eyes of most fair-minded people,
ruined the causes that he so self-righteously championed.
The measure of a man is what he does with power. Plato
No comments:
Post a Comment