A case study is a comprehensive and in-depth examination of a particular subject, often within its real-life context. It serves as a methodological tool to explore, analyze, and understand complex issues or phenomena, ranging from individual experiences to organizational challenges. Typically employed in various academic disciplines, business settings, and scientific research, a case study involves an extensive investigation that aims to provide a detailed account of the subject under scrutiny. By delving into the intricate details of a specific case, researchers can uncover valuable insights, draw conclusions, and offer practical solutions. This method offers a holistic approach, allowing for a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing the subject, making it an invaluable tool for gaining knowledge and informing decision-making processes.
Q12. Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence of Government surveillance programmes. According to many legal experts and the US Government, his action violated the Espionage act of 1971, which identified the leak of State secrets as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistle blowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”
According to Snowden, the Government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised national security, for which he should be held accountable.
Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case (250 Words, 20 Marks)
Tag: Case Study
Decoding the Question:
- In the Introduction, try to write a case summary.
- In Body,
- Mention the stakeholders involved.
- Discuss the conflicting values that created ethical dilemmas.
- Give your justification with valid points.
- In Conclusion, try to write an opinion on the case.
Answer:
Case Summary:
Edward Snowden, a computer expert and a CIA administrator, made government documents public, which violated the Espionage Act, 1971. According to him he had a moral obligation to act and give his justification. Many argued with Snowden and many agreed with his act.
Stakeholders involved in the case:
- Edward Snowden, a computer expert and a former CIA administrator.
- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), United States.
- The United States Government.
Organizational and social ethics play an important role in inducing our actions and justifying the motives for doing so. When there is a conflict between social ethics and organizational ethics, a dilemma is imminent. The perennial sources of conflict is individual freedom and rights on one hand and larger interest of the nation or the society on the other hand.
The argument provided by Edward Snowden is valid under his own beliefs but the government’s claims are also acceptable under certain circumstances such as national security.
In this case, two conflicting values created the ethical dilemma which are:
Morality Vs. legality: These both values are closely related as both seek to regulate human behavior and actions. But actions which may be legally correct may not be morally correct or vice-versa. It is an eternal dilemma which will occur in the future as well. Law is necessary to maintain order and minimum co-ordination in the society. Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Both seek justice in different ways and help attaining stability in the society. Establishing precedence of one over other would not be a wise option. In this case, Edward Snowden has legally violated the Espionage Act, 1917, but his act must be looked at with his intentions to serve the larger public good.
Individual Liberty vs National Security: Individual liberty (privacy) seeks to provide individual space to humans. This value respects the intricate relations of a person, personal feelings of people etc., which are essential because we are humans. National security seeks protection of society from all kinds of threats and it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, boundaries, economy etc. No nation becomes great by dwarfing its own individual. The surveillance programme was a gross violation of its own mandate. Snowden’s act in this case should not be considered a threat to national security.
The US Government’s view in Snowden’s case:
- Every organization has a set of rules, beliefs and conventions that have to be preserved at all extent. This keeps the organization from failing due to misdeeds. By violating the rules of organization, Edward Snowden has committed an offense and he should be punished.
- Organizations have certain secrets or insider information that have to be kept from leaking. Individuals working in the organization are committed to maintaining such secrecy. Snowden’s actions would have created great risk for the functioning of the organization and thus was charged.
My justification:
- Breaching the privacy of people is also an infringement on their freedom and dignity. It is undemocratic. What Snowden did might have violated the law, but it upheld the cause of freedom and dignity of the people and justice and fairness.
- So, what Snowden did was morally correct and was in favor of democracy, freedom, justice, and fairness. Such occasions are rare in history and those who speak against unfair practices of the state and violate the state’s dictates for a truly great cause, they become Socrates or Gandhi. But doing such acts for populism, and personal gains should be punished.
As the New York Times rightly stated on Snowden’s actions, “He may have committed a crime, but he has done his country a great service.”
In the mentioned case, Snowden is struggling with a dilemma. Surveillance was a gross violation in the name of national security, so he was correct in revealing the government. On ethical principles it seems right to act as a whistleblower to bring out the truth in order to make a just and fair system for the people and a just and fair global order.
In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.
For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here
For Daily Updates and Study Material:
Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS
- 1. Learn through Videos – here
- 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
- 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
- 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here
