William Jeff Sze
Foley
Knowledge, Goodness, and Liberty
9 November 2016
The Essence of Whistleblowing
In July 2013, Edward Snowden openly leaked documents on the United States’ involvement in global surveillance both domestically and abroad. It was revealed that the National Security Agency was legally empowered to infringe into citizens’ private lives by monitoring their phone, email, and Internet usage. Snowden fled the United States and in an interview before defecting professed, “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things”. He illegally blew the whistle on the government, and was indicted for criminal behavior. Ordinary citizens praised him for his bravery and perceived justice, while others bitterly dismissed him as unpatriotic and traitorous. How are whistleblowers, like Snowden, to be treated for their beliefs?
Firstly, are the truths that come about as a result of whistleblowing absolutely beneficial? Do people’s increased knowledge of secretive corporate activity have positive lasting effects? After Snowden leaked governmental documents, there have been social movements such as Restore the Fourth and Stop Watching Us reacting fiercely against this new government intervention. Similarly, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971 because Ellsberg felt disgusted by the fact that both the Johnson and Nixon administrations have become overly militaristic and have spied on Americans all throughout the Cold War. Again, Americans were outraged by the oppression of big government. Yes, citizens were enlightened to all these revelations, but most were demoralized by the fact that the state has overstepped its authority, preserved expedient interests, and infringed upon civil liberties. Suppose, hypothetically, that the Rothschild family controls every nation’s central bank. And suppose one member of the family exposed that international monetary policy has been purposefully orchestrated boom-and-bust cycles to affect currency and security prices to the family’s will. Most realistically, the masses would, then, overthrow all banking and financial services institutions. In the worst case scenario, people around the world would target the Rothschild family, other global elite, and political leaders for their corrupt scheme. Based off all these examples, whistleblowing may be good in the sense that people are well-informed. But the majority of people in society may be so disillusioned, demoralized by dark truths of government and business interests that society becomes disorderly and untrusting.
In general, society places a heavy stigma on whistleblowing and generally discourages it at all costs. This is obvious given the risks, legal ramifications, self-harm, and threat to security that come about to the snitch. Objectivism is one ethical system that may avert people from whistleblowing. The ethical system, popularly espoused by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, libertarian economists, and liberal sociopolitical intellectuals, prioritizes one’s self-interest in making moral decisions. For Ayn Rand, if people looked to and accounted for their own responsibility and goals, then the whole of society would achieve happiness. Such an ideology would be hard to pull off because it requires the freedom from governmental institutions and the rejection of previously espoused altruistic principles. But in the case of whistleblowing, it’s pretty clear that objectivists would condone the intentions of all whistleblowers. Whistleblowing tarnishes the individual’s worth and legacy. In fact, many objectivists would take this a step further, claiming that no rational human being would willingly shoot themselves in the foot in this manner.
However, there are many famous ethical systems that overwhelmingly support the act of whistleblowing to varying degrees. For example, Immanuel Kant’s deontological normative ethics are rooted in obligatory-based conscious decisions. Kant believes that good will is the only thing that qualifies moral worth in human beings. This means that moral actions are those that are executed by this universal human feeling, not by other motivating factors such as greed or envy, which cannot be universalized, or embraced, by every human being. Following this reasoning, Kant believes that one should treat other humans as ends, and not as means. This teaching rests on the premise that all humans are valuable because of their rationality. For example, Kant thinks that humans should be unconditionally honest because it is good to be truthful. So in treating others as ends implies that Kant believes they should not be lied to, cheated on, or exploited. Given that some governments and private organizations have done secretive immoral deeds such as securities fraud, violation of privacy, withholding evidence, deontological morals would call for individuals in these shady groups to come out sincerely of any illegal or unethical actions because no human deserves to be deceived or cheated on.
Utilitarianism is another ethical system that favors pointing the finger. Powerfully espoused by the ambitious English philosopher John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism seeks to optimize the greatest amount of good for the majority. Any individual action that produces the most utility is considered to be most good. This ethical ideology is consequentialist, meaning the end results justify any means, which may run contrary to Kant’s deontology ethics in many cases. But in fact, I believe that both systems, despite their contradictory stances, would both praise the act of whistleblowing. Mill believes that the individual has this universal feeling of being concerned with others’ happiness or utility. Although this idea is very presumptuous, it follows that since people are feeling for others, then “their ends are identified with those of others; [and] there is at least a temporary feeling that the interests of others are their own interests” (Mill 32). This means that my satisfaction is no greater, no less than my that of my neighbors. If I had to make an investment for myself or some larger organization, utilitarian philosophy prompts me to invest in the latter because more people would be satisfied. Consider the case of American banker Bradley Birkenfeld. He revealed that UBS, one of the largest banks in Switzerland, was involved in tax evasion of some very wealthy United States taxpayers. In 2005, he decided to report his findings to the United States Department of Justice, and was sentenced to forty months in prison with $30,000 in fines. But in 2009, this tax problem had been settled when UBS agreed to paying a $780 million fine along with providing other classified legal material. Plus, Birkenfeld was later awarded a whopping $104 million award for his service as an IRS whistleblower. Birkenfeld’s situation is very unique in that the he was compensated so generously despite his involvement with UBS; however, his whistleblowing highlights that, from the utilitarian perspective, the payoffs were insurmountable for both Birkenfeld and his home country. And even if Birkenfeld was not awarded so hugely, the United States was able to receive funds from legal justice. The utility of the American government is relatively greater than Birkenfeld’s utility, so Birkenfeld is deemed morally good by Mill and his disciples. Based off utilitarianism, any individual whistleblower is usually moral good because he or she sacrifices his image for greater justice and utility.
There are many other ideologies that honor whistleblowing such as Aristotle’s virtue ethics, which prompt people to act courageously in order to produce moral outcomes. But Objectivism and egoistic principles remind people, contemplating whether or not to snitch, that their own well-being, reputation, and life is on the line. Given the harsh effects of blowing the whistle, it is still debatable whether or not all individuals should be inclined to tell the truth all the time. The indefinite goodness in whistleblowing is reflected in Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay “Existentialism is a Humanism” when he generalizes that “man is condemned to be free… [and] is responsible for everything he does”. It is not fair to denounce people who remain complacently quiet when they are involved in dark organizations because their subjective thinking processes have justified their own moral decisions. I think that people who do not snitch are neither moral nor immoral. But I believe that whistleblowers are generally moral because they tell the truth, which is absolutely good, and enlighten others to corporations’ selfish motives. They mean well, produce mostly good outcomes by serving others all while sacrificing their status and considering the negative legal, interpersonal consequences.