Consider the role of dissent in society and the ethical obligations of those who feel morally compelled to act on personal beliefs that may be at odds with their employer's goals and mission.
• Select two notorious whistleblowers and compare and contrast their actions and motivations.
• Discuss how the organization's standards, culture, and leaders may have contributed to the public disclosure, and explain whether you think the ends justified the means.
• What effect, if any, did the disclosure have on how the organization now conducts business?
• Lastly, if you were in their shoes, what you have done?
Guide On Rating System
Vote
Two notorious whistleblowers who can be compared and contrasted are Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified documents in 2013, revealing the extent of global surveillance programs operated by the NSA and its international partners. Snowden's motivation was to expose what he believed to be the violation of privacy rights and the erosion of civil liberties by government agencies. He felt morally compelled to inform the public about these activities and the potential dangers they posed to society.
Chelsea Manning, a former US Army soldier and intelligence analyst, leaked classified information in 2010, including documents and videos that exposed war crimes and human rights abuses committed by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Manning's actions were driven by a desire to bring attention to these actions and hold those responsible accountable.
In both cases, the individuals acted out of a sense of moral duty to inform the public when they believed their governments were engaged in wrongful and unethical activities. However, their motivations differed slightly. Snowden focused mainly on government surveillance, while Manning exposed war crimes.
The organization's standards, culture, and leaders play a significant role in the whistleblowers' decisions to disclose information publicly. In Snowden's case, he believed that the NSA and its leaders had abandoned their duty to protect privacy and uphold the Constitution, creating a culture of secrecy and deceit. Similarly, Manning saw a culture of cover-up and impunity within the military, which pushed her to reveal the truth.
The ends, in both cases, can be argued to have justified the means. The public disclosure of classified information led to debates about the balance between national security and individual privacy rights (in Snowden's case) and the need for accountability and transparency in military operations (in Manning's case). These discussions prompted reforms and changes in policies, such as increased oversight and the reevaluation of certain surveillance programs.
The disclosure had a significant impact on how both organizations conduct business. The NSA faced widespread public scrutiny and had to adjust its practices regarding bulk data collection and surveillance. Manning's leak led to reforms in military operations and procedures, emphasizing the protection of civilians and adherence to international humanitarian laws.
If I were in their shoes, the decision to disclose sensitive information would depend on the nature of the wrongdoing and the potential consequences. I would carefully consider the ethical implications and the potential harm caused by disclosing the information. Ultimately, I would assess whether the disclosure could lead to positive change or justice being served. Whistleblowing is a complex and risky decision, often requiring individuals to make difficult choices based on their personal values and beliefs.
Got a question with my answer?
Cheapmath.com is completely free!
Asking question is free.
Getting answers is free.
+99