Moral question

[Meshugger]

For the sake of the argument, if you were working in the goverment and found out that they did something morally and ethically wrong, would you expose it?

 

Answers like "What would Jesus do?" will be ignored.

 

Oh, and a happy new year to everyone

Edited December 31, 2005 by Meshugger

[BattleCookiee]

Guess most people would do...

 

And that is why none of us are politicians.

[Meshugger]

This is just for my idle curiosity, i would like people who answered both "yes" or "no" to justify their arguments.

[dufflover]

What about options like "Yes, only if I didn't feel threatened" (you know, like the company fires and wrecks your reputation so you're fully screwed later. In general a lot of whistleblowers take time to muster courage and take a risk anyway.

 

"What would Jesus do?" will be ignored.

(from Hungry Hungry Homer

Duffman: "New feelings brewing in Duffman!..."

 

Oh, and a happy new year to everyone

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yay, I'm in '06 already

[BattleCookiee]

Alright.

 

Voted "Yes. If I felt it is morally wrong" (the top one).

 

The Government should be to represent and protect the people, they can't do that if they do things that will jepodize (sp?) them...

 

And if you leak those things out there is a high chance that the government should re-act and change their way...

[Lucius]

If they break the law, the law is the law.

[LadyCrimson]

If I would lose my job (fired + probably couldn't get work in that field again) and it wasn't something that would kill anyone or start a war, probably not. Unless I could do the annoymous tip bit. Sorry, I'm no hero, and I freely admit it.

 

Just depends how huge the moral infraction was, for me. Some morals & ethics can be highly subjective, and occasionally even broken for a long-term goal.

[Hell Kitty]

I would happily accept a briefcase full of cash for my silence.

[LadyCrimson]

Only one briefcase? You're thinking small, man.

[Judge Hades]

I would report it, yes. Anythig to take our government down a peg.

[Walsingham]

I would recognise that

 

a) In the UK I have sworn to keep government activity secret.

b) I would tell the correct superiors that I felt the action were immoral/illegal. Meaning my boss or in extremis the Commons select committee.

c) If neither of those parties took action I would have to assume my interpretation of morality or the law was possibly incorrect, and remembering A, keep my piehole shut.

d) Utterly mock and revile anyone who breaks their word and the chain of command because they think the public need to know.

e) watch as the public lose interest in the scandal within five minutes, and possibly see servicement/informants/the national interest suffer.

[Archmonarch]

Since this is a hypothetical, I selected the first option. Id like to think Im that morally upright. However, I have this fear of death so in reality, I am unsure. Would probably depend on the degree of the trangression and its consequences.

[Surreptishus]

I would recognise that

 

a) In the UK I have sworn to keep government activity secret.

b) I would tell the correct superiors that I felt the action were immoral/illegal. Meaning my boss or in extremis the Commons select committee.

c) If neither of those parties took action I would have to assume my interpretation of morality or the law was possibly incorrect, and remembering A, keep my piehole shut.

d) Utterly mock and revile anyone who breaks their word and the chain of command because they think the public need to know.

e) watch as the public lose interest in the scandal within five minutes, and possibly see servicement/informants/the national interest suffer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You articulate my ill-formed thoughts so well.

[Darkside]

Like Crimson said, it depends. Sometimes distasteful things have to be done, as long as it wasn't anything too terrible I'd keep my mouth shut. But even if it was, I would try to find some tactful way to handle it instead of blabbing to every reporter I found. A few weeks of controversy followed by a few years of distrust never helped anybody.

[Walsingham]

I should add that I would also consider resigning. But even once I resigned I would feel legally and morally obliged to keep schtumm.

 

EDIT: I should add another point -

 

I believe firmly that while government service is not the boyscouts, one can and should expect government agencies to act within the law, and within the bounds of morality. Unless government servants bear this in mind government itself becomes unjust and unsound. I merely recognise my own fallibility and my own obligation to act within the laws that I agree to abide by. Such as the obligation to remain silent on secret matters.

[Commissar]

Depends entirely on the violation. A former head of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, back when it was the Directorate of Operations, famously stated that CIA officers around the globe break the law a thousand times a day. We had A-teams in Iraq up to two months before invading, according to some reports, which is technically a violation of international law. Are either of those examples worthy of a big leak scandal brouhaha? Not in my opinion.

 

Here's the thing about the NSA stuff: I was initially against it, very strongly, and now I'm not entirely sure. I spoke with someone slightly more connected to this sort of thing than I, and he suggested that what they're doing, when the reporters are saying they're monitoring phone calls from American citizens to terrorist suspects, is actually more like an Echelon system; in other words, the NSA's using computers to analyze huge amounts of traffic, looking for patterns, and zooming in on suspects to actually listen in on that way. If they don't get a warrant to eavesdrop at that point, I'm still against it. But getting a warrant for 250 million people for the initial step would be a little wacky.

[Walsingham]

I see your points there Commissar. I would suggest, however, that if law international or national condemns sensible activity then government ought to change the law, not merely subvert it.

 

On the other hand I know that the electorate are hardly very sensible about sensitive or complex issues, so maybe the only realistic option is for the govt to break the law.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Goverments should not be able to do dodgy stuff and get away with it without he public ever knowing it happened.

 

 

 

Openness is a basic staple of democracy and using national security as an excuse to keep the public in the dark is not only unethical, it should be criminal.

[Vashanti]

[Gabrielle]

You put the words moral and government in the same sentence. That doesn't make sense.

[WITHTEETH]

secrets are for manipulation

[Cantousent]

I voted for "breaking the law."

 

My reason is simple, if I thought the actions were morally or ethically wrong, then I probably wouldn't join the outfit in the first place. Now, I'm sure there will be some things I find distasteful, but something would have to be truly heinous before I'd break a trust by ratting out my department. The question should also reflect that fact. What is bad enough to make you break the trust to which you've volunteered?

 

Some specific cases which would cause me to break that trust would include:

 

De facto or actively condoned use of torture. (I'm not going to engage in the mental masturbation of trying to catalogue what constitutes torture. I will, in all cases, use the reasonable person standard.)

 

De facto or actively condoned use of violence on non-combatants.

 

Any and every command that required me to break the laws of my country. No one, and I mean no one has the right or sanction to break our laws to protect our citizens. You think the laws don't work to serve our purposes? You'd best change the damned laws, then.

[Cantousent]

Here's the thing about the NSA stuff: I was initially against it, very strongly, and now I'm not entirely sure.  I spoke with someone slightly more connected to this sort of thing than I, and he suggested that what they're doing, when the reporters are saying they're monitoring phone calls from American citizens to terrorist suspects, is actually more like an Echelon system; in other words, the NSA's using computers to analyze huge amounts of traffic, looking for patterns, and zooming in on suspects to actually listen in on that way.  If they don't get a warrant to eavesdrop at that point, I'm still against it.  But getting a warrant for 250 million people for the initial step would be a little wacky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm still against it, but I've had the same thing explained to me. The thing is, the government, particularly the NSA, doesn't have the resources to monitor everyone. I thought the hysterics regarding the issue were over-done, but I still disagree with the practice. This falls under the "laws of my country" idea I expressed in my previous post.

[BattleCookiee]

This falls under the "laws of my country" idea I expressed in my previous post

 

Ah, but the US easily avoids this by doing their dirty deeds in countries were it isn't outlawed.

 

Would you allow Torture in East-Europe, and leak it if it was in the US?

 

Because in the US it is outlawed, but there in Eastern Europe it isn't...

Edited December 31, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Child of Flame]

I'm a rabble rouser, what do you guys think?