Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
hueymahl
hueymahl's Journal
hueymahl's Journal
September 16, 2013
In recent months there has been a visible struggle in the media to come to grips with the leaking, whistle-blowing and hacktivism that has vexed the United States military and the private and government intelligence communities. This response has run the gamut. It has involved attempts to condemn, support, demonize, psychoanalyze and in some cases canonize figures like Aaron Swartz, Jeremy Hammond, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.
In broad terms, commentators in the mainstream and corporate media have tended to assume that all of these actors needed to be brought to justice, while independent players on the Internet and elsewhere have been much more supportive. Tellingly, a recent Time magazine cover story has pointed out a marked generational difference in how people view these matters: 70 percent of those age 18 to 34 sampled in a poll said they believed that Snowden did a good thing in leaking the news of the National Security Agencys surveillance program.
So has the younger generation lost its moral compass?
No. In my view, just the opposite.
In Eichmann in Jerusalem, one of the most poignant and important works of 20th-century philosophy, Hannah Arendt made an observation about what she called the banality of evil. One interpretation of this holds that it was not an observation about what a regular guy Adolph Eichmann seemed to be, but rather a statement about what happens when people play their proper roles within a system, following prescribed conduct with respect to that system, while remaining blind to the moral consequences of what the system was doing or at least compartmentalizing and ignoring those consequences.
This is a great Op-Ed piece by Peter Ludlow, a professor of philosophy at Northwestern. He advances the proposition that normal people basically lose their moral compass when subjected to bureaucracy, especially if their livelihood is dependent on such compliance. This has happened throughout history and is what is happening now with the prosecution of principled whistleblowers acting outside the rules of bureaucracy (and outside the law codified law, though within moral law). It also pretty much decimates the arguments advanced here and other places that Snoweden, et al, was evil and a meglomaniac, etc. My favorite passage:
For all you NSA / Administration sympathizers out there, I just have one thing to say - you have plenty of company throughout history; it is just not the kind of company with whom I would want to be associated.
The Banality of Systemic Evil
From the NYTimes: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality-of-systemic-evil/
In recent months there has been a visible struggle in the media to come to grips with the leaking, whistle-blowing and hacktivism that has vexed the United States military and the private and government intelligence communities. This response has run the gamut. It has involved attempts to condemn, support, demonize, psychoanalyze and in some cases canonize figures like Aaron Swartz, Jeremy Hammond, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.
In broad terms, commentators in the mainstream and corporate media have tended to assume that all of these actors needed to be brought to justice, while independent players on the Internet and elsewhere have been much more supportive. Tellingly, a recent Time magazine cover story has pointed out a marked generational difference in how people view these matters: 70 percent of those age 18 to 34 sampled in a poll said they believed that Snowden did a good thing in leaking the news of the National Security Agencys surveillance program.
So has the younger generation lost its moral compass?
No. In my view, just the opposite.
In Eichmann in Jerusalem, one of the most poignant and important works of 20th-century philosophy, Hannah Arendt made an observation about what she called the banality of evil. One interpretation of this holds that it was not an observation about what a regular guy Adolph Eichmann seemed to be, but rather a statement about what happens when people play their proper roles within a system, following prescribed conduct with respect to that system, while remaining blind to the moral consequences of what the system was doing or at least compartmentalizing and ignoring those consequences.
This is a great Op-Ed piece by Peter Ludlow, a professor of philosophy at Northwestern. He advances the proposition that normal people basically lose their moral compass when subjected to bureaucracy, especially if their livelihood is dependent on such compliance. This has happened throughout history and is what is happening now with the prosecution of principled whistleblowers acting outside the rules of bureaucracy (and outside the law codified law, though within moral law). It also pretty much decimates the arguments advanced here and other places that Snoweden, et al, was evil and a meglomaniac, etc. My favorite passage:
But wasnt there arrogance or hubris in Snowdens and Mannings decisions to leak the documents? After all, werent there established procedures determining what was right further up the organizational chart? Werent these ethical decisions better left to someone with a higher pay grade? The former United States ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, argued that Snowden thinks hes smarter and has a higher morality than the rest of us
that he can see clearer than other 299, 999, 999 of us, and therefore he can do what he wants. I say that is the worst form of treason.
For the leaker and whistleblower the answer to Bolton is that there can be no expectation that the system will act morally of its own accord. Systems are optimized for their own survival and preventing the system from doing evil may well require breaking with organizational niceties, protocols or laws. It requires stepping outside of ones assigned organizational role. The chief executive is not in a better position to recognize systemic evil than is a middle level manager or, for that matter, an IT contractor. Recognizing systemic evil does not require rank or intelligence, just honesty of vision.
For the leaker and whistleblower the answer to Bolton is that there can be no expectation that the system will act morally of its own accord. Systems are optimized for their own survival and preventing the system from doing evil may well require breaking with organizational niceties, protocols or laws. It requires stepping outside of ones assigned organizational role. The chief executive is not in a better position to recognize systemic evil than is a middle level manager or, for that matter, an IT contractor. Recognizing systemic evil does not require rank or intelligence, just honesty of vision.
For all you NSA / Administration sympathizers out there, I just have one thing to say - you have plenty of company throughout history; it is just not the kind of company with whom I would want to be associated.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHome country: USA
Member since: Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:07 PM
Number of posts: 2,495