Ahmed Kargbo
Cyber Ethics
Dr. Linford
Citizenfour (Case Study #2)
Upon watching and analyzing the Citizenfour documentary, I’ve decided to apply the Normative Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism to an ethical challenge faced by the protagonist, Edward Snowden. After landing an honorable contract with the NSA as a Security Contractor, Snowden uncovered that the U.S government uses mass surveillance programs which are meant to collect the data of regular civilians without their knowledge and this was a huge problem because it violated privacy laws and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Snowden knew this was just plain wrong so he tried to raise his concerns internally and advocate for civilian privacy laws but no change came about just as he had expected. Snowden always believed civilians deserved their privacy so he was tasked with the challenge: should he turn a blind eye or should he speak up and alert the public about what the government does with their personal data? I argue that according to the theory of Utilitarianism, Snowden must speak up and alert the public and act in a way that focuses on bringing utility for the greatest number of people, which is the general public in this case. I will now explain the key ideas of Utilitarianism, then I will further describe Snowden’s ethical challenge and lastly show how Utilitarianism will solve this issue.
Utilitarianism, which is a particular version of Consequentialism, is a theory that states that out of all the actions you should perform, the action you ought to perform is the one that brings the most happiness. According to Utilitarians, the main concept of Utilitarianism is simply just bringing about ‘utility’. Although Utilitarianism is defined as pleasure instead of happiness and pain instead of unhappiness it all focuses on the concept of utility. Utility can be thought of as a number, for example a number scale ranging from 1-10 with 10 being the highest number on the scale and highest amount a pleasure one can achieve. The way Utilitarians decide that an action is morally wrong or right is by determining if the action is desirable and helpful for a greater means. For example an action like happiness is an intrinsic desire simply because happiness is a virtue and we as humans know what happiness means to us but on the other hand, we also know to stay away from certain things such as pain simply because they are undesirable and bring about displeasure. Simply put, whatever is intrinsically desirable is good and whatever is intrinsically undesirable is evil.
Snowden was known to be passionate about computers and technology from a young age so it made sense for him to follow up with said career path. Snowden was born into a military family, and he followed suit by joining the United States Army Reserve which is where his career started. Snowden started off his technology career as a security contractor working for government agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and National Security Agency (NSA). Working for such high ranking government agencies requires one to have a high-level security clearance which allows access to highly classified data such as the issues Snowden discovered which were government surveillance systems. Snowden discovered that the government used mass surveillance systems to monitor and collect data from regular civilians and this not only violated privacy and regulatory laws but also violated Fourth Amendment laws which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Snowden attempted to raise his concerns internally but knew no change would come about so he had the idea to then speak up publicly. Snowden knew the actions of the U.S government were morally wrong so it was up to him to do something that would be morally right.
According to the theory of Utilitarianism, Snowden must act in a way that is intrinsically desirable. Going back to the number scale, the main question is how much is Snowden willing to give up to find or reach the most pleasure. By Utilitarian principles, if Snowden isn’t willing to give up anything to find what is intrinsically desirable, then he is just as evil as the U.S government. Secondly, the amount that Snowden is willing to give up is what will decide his mental state and mental clarity. Lastly, the best possible choice for Snowden is to try to bring about Utility because in this case the desire is not intrinsic, meaning that if Snowden follows through with the act that brings the most utility then he will also be doing so for a greater good which is alerting and protecting the general public.
To resolve this dilemma, Snowden should find a way to alert the public about the use of mass surveillance systems by the United States government because this will bring the most utility. After weighing the consequences, Snowden ought to make the choice that brings about the most pleasure and in this case he will not be the only one receiving the feeling of pleasure. Snowden will feel pleasurable knowing that his mental state is cleared and he is not drowning in guilt while on the other hand, civilians will feel pleasure now that they know the truth and can find other ways to maximize their privacy. I think Snowden’s choice perfectly exemplified Utilitarianism because he went to a safe location like Hong Kong where he cannot be extradited and also chose to not involve his family because he did not want them to be harmed.
In sum, the ethical challenge Snowden faces in the Citizenfour documentary can be resolved by the principles of the Utilitarian theory. From a Utilitarian perspective, the right thing for Snowden to do was to speak up and alert the public about the government’s wrong doing rather than becoming a product of his situation and also being deemed as evil according to Utilitarians. This means losing his family and disregarding the repercussions he would have to face from the U.S government. Utilitarianism offers a simple principle that states: whatever is intrinsically desirable is good and whatever is intrinsically undesirable is evil.