General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Edward Snowden is a man without honor. [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)But what about conflicting responsibilities? If you are privy to a secret, a reprehensible action, even if you have given your word to remain silent, aren't you bound by a higher duty?
There are several ways to look at this. You and others seem to believe that the highest duty is to country, no matter what the government has done, or is doing. The philosophy behind that breaks down to loyalty to nation above all. It is expressed by one of two phrases. My country is always right, which is juvenile. My country right or wrong which is asinine.
The principles of morally right and wrong are not new. They go back to the Greeks, but are best explored by St. Augustine who taught us that an unjust law is no law.
That was the principle behind the Nuremburg trials. The defense that the participants were merely following orders was rejected, and with good reason. The immoral orders should have been resisted even under penalty of death. So the question is this. Has the wheel turned? Are we now the authoritarian state that demands loyalty and obedience above all other concerns?
Snowden may have committed a crime, but what was the higher crime? Is it worse to break your word, or violate the privacy and spy on your own citizens? A nation that asks for the people to sacrifice their lives in service should be worthy of that sacrifice.