Please follow the link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/world/asia/30wiki.html?emc=eta1
After reading the story, identify what you see as the ethical conflict. Which side do you sympathize with? Why? Cite an ethical principle or reason for your decision.
Your response is due by 6 p.m., Wednesday, Sept 1.
Please remember that I accept no late assignments.
http://costofwar.com/
http://icasualties.org/oef/
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
27 comments:
Should our government be allowed to keep secrets? To essentially lie to us under claims that they are protecting us? Conversely, should the media disclose things to us, even if they know it might endanger a mission and potentially put lives at risk? There is a definite ethical conflict here, and it has to do with both transparency and security. But I think the answer to this question lies not only in the relative importance of the two, but also in the weight these specific documents carried. Were they really so “politically,” “diplomatically” or “ethically” significant that they needed to be publicized? Another issue is the innocent lives potentially at risk. Does it matter that the disclosure of the documents could result in lives lost? Or is that point moot because we are at war, and lives are already being lost?
After some consideration, I find myself sympathizing (which I rarely do) with the federal government's position, but I think this might be because of a lack of information on my part. I'm not sure exactly what these documents say, but if they do as Gates said, “offer little insight into current policies and events,” than I don't see the point in leaking them. If so, it seems that the intention of WikiLeaks in this particular situation was just to grab attention, whereas the intention of the government was to protect soldiers and ensure success on the battlefield. Granted, WikiLeaks has been am instrumental tool in unveiling wrongdoing. They are credited with releasing that classified military video that depicted U.S. Airstrikes in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists. So given their credbility in the past, I'm not sure. But if I'm going solely on the NY Times story, the intention of the military seems more ethically sound.
On another note, information aside, I think it was absolutely irresponsible for WikiLeaks to release the questionably relevant information if it meant more potential lives lost in wartime. I have a feeling that the people who leaked that information wouldn't “feel good after,” if you know what I mean. I guess that's only consequentialist, which we know isn't a perfect or necessarily good way to analyze things, but I still find myself going back to it a lot when I'm trying to figure out if something is ethical or not.
The ethical conflict is obviously whether or not the journalists & wikiLeaks were in the right to publish the documents that could be potentially harmful to homeland security. & in my opinion, what they did was not only ethical, but the right thing to do. Do we REALLY want the government to have not only some, but thousands and thousands of secrets that they are hiding from us? What if those secrets are negatively effecting our national security, but because of the lack of information provided by them there is nothing we can do about it? I believe that wikiLeaks made the ethical decision here, even if they did obtain the documents through unethical, and possibly illegal means. Also, the media & wikileaks has made every attempt to protect the information that they believe could be dangerous, & to protect those who would be basically outed if all the classified documents were released.
In my opinion, although it could be viewed as ethically conflicting, i believe that wikiLeaks & the media outlets that have published these documents were making the right, ethical decision.
In the New York Times Article “Gates Assails WikiLeaks Over Release of Reports” there is an ethical conflict over the right to military intelligence. Julian Assange, the creator of WikiLeaks claims that it is “a form of journalism that seeks to protect whistle-blowers and enhance democracy by making public information that government officials would rather keep secret.” The ethical dilemma is whether or not making this information public is going to do harm to our national security.
I personally agree with Admiral Mike Mullen when he says WikiLeaks were “recklessly endangering people in order to satisfy its “need to make a point.” I think that there is some information about the government and wars that despite the corruption, we as the public should simply not know. There is some information that is kept a secret for a reason- for our safety and the safety of others.
I believe that we should be told the truth about what is going on from out governments; but I do not feel it is necessary to have all of the details. It makes it difficult that the United States has a history of corruption in the government and I understand that there are people who really want to make the United States more of a democracy. However, I think there is a line and leaking governmental papers about specific people and places linked to the war is crossing that line.
After thinking about it I find myself sympathizing with the federal government. I do not think publishing the papers was an ethical decision because of the huge possibility of putting people in harm’s way and for what reason? What good does it do for us to see these papers? Most people in the United States are not very military literate and I am not sure that the general public would even understand the papers. The bigger problem is that these papers can get into the hands of people who understand it and are against us and that is a problem we may not be able to fix.
has any one been harmed because of the leaks? has the govt or gates pointed to any harmful incidents or deaths because of the leaks? think about it. . . please.
The conflict is whether or not to publish the “classified” information. Is it ethical to publish documents deemed private? The government claims that revealing the contents of the files would threaten homeland security, so is it ethical to give away the secrets anyway? To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel. Part of me feels that it’s wrong to publish confidential documents. If it’s private, then it should stay private. However, when it comes to governmental procedure, I’m more inclined to think it’s okay to publish them. People have a right to know what the government is doing, and why. I don’t think that the public should know EVERYTHING, but the majority will do.
I do think that the Wikileak situation was handled well. The sources were protected (from what I understand…I could be completely wrong), and the public became more informed. I can also see why the government was pissed. If it was my business being aired out, I would be furious.
I can sympathize with both sides as an aspiring journalist and as someone who was raised by a federal agent/knows someone who just got home from his third deployment in Afghanistan but I don't think what Private Manning and WikiLeaks did was ethical. The government shouldn't be hiding secrets yet military officials like Manning are trained to kill, and if they can't, they're booted out. Reports say his intentions were unethical, seeing as he leaked this information possibly because he didn't fit in with the military and this is how he repays them. WikiLeaks was helpful when they released information regarding a US Apache helicopter striking two innocent Reuters reporters. It's good to know they weren't killed by enemy fire and even worse it was friendly. It's getting a little out of hand now. Do I agree the government should keep secrets? No, but some of those secrets protect us here and over there. Yes there's secrets in return that may harm or deceive us but I don't think the government needs to be deceived either. The wars have been difficult to stomach especially for the media outlets though one difference is that this site is called WikiLeaks. It's job is to leak confidential information that wasn't meant to get out and be accessible for the public (even terrorists). There's no proof this could cause more blood on both Pfc. Manning and WikiLeak's founder, Julian Assange as of today so I don't know how right it was for Admiral Mike Mullen to say that. So, I sympathize with both but as for ethical conflicts, it's just raising hell and reminding the public what kind of mess we got into almost nine years ago.
In my opinion, the ethical conflict is that each side seems to be hiding behind an "ethical" reason for doing something unethical.
In the case of the U.S government- by saying they needed to protect everyone involved, they're justifying keeping thousands of reports and incidents about the war from the American public. Some documents undoubtedly were withheld to protect strategies, identities, and relationships- as said by Gates. Other documents, as skeptics have pointed out show thousands of reports noting that the Afghan army and police force that we have spend billions training, often turn on us, conspire against us and are generally not working out. The public had a right to know this so that we might have voted differently, some might not have wanted to support massive spending on failing war efforts.
With Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, their actions are equally if not more questionable. Assange and the site claim to "enhance democracy by making public information that government officials would rather keep secret." That is the so-called ethical shield WikiLeaks is hiding behind. In part, they are completely in the right. We have a right to information. But at what cost? Professor G commented on who was actually hurt with all this? No one as of yet, however in an article published today on nytimes Assange announced plans to release the remaining 15,000 documents he allegedly didn't publish for "safety reasons". This announcement disregards Gates public statements saying those remaining documents contain delicate names of informants and allies in Afghanistan, the release of this information very well could harm many innocent people.
Someone mentioned earlier that it seems like Assange is not out to make a journalistic point, or to free information, or do the public any favors. He seems to want attention. In a related article on the nytimes website it says: "Over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war. But in some cases the documents show that the American military made misleading public statements" So if these documents are not dramatically shocking, information we never knew, why bother?
I think I have to sympathize with the U.S government, for once. I don't think this information was worth the backlash, and I think the leaked information was stolen solely to grab the spotlight, and to prove some kind of a point. I don't think it is worth putting anyone in danger- even potentially. That being said, that does not mean I think its right or okay for our government to keep thousands of secrets from us. However I made my decision based on the intent behind the actions and the more information I read about this situation the more Assange seems like he would endanger anyone to have his fifteen minutes of fame and spotlight.
Isn't an unjustified war on behalf of a corrupt regime endangering American lives more than Wikileaks ever could? I'm just saying. . .
I am, generally, a person who places very little trust in the federal government. Looking back at the countless conspiracies, lies, cover-ups, etc. in American history, I find it difficult to place any substantial faith in the people running this nation, although lately I have been trying to be a bit less cynical. Still, in this case, I find myself sympathizing more with Wikileaks and the media outlets.
In regards to ethics, we have to ask ourselves, "Is it right that Wikileaks published thousands of federal secrets that could possibly endanger the lives of Americans, our allies, and the Afghans fighting in the war?" More broadly, I saw the ethical conflict as whether or not our government has a right to keep secrets from the public, and whether it is okay for our media to release federal secrets, even with potential safety risks.
However, in this case, I don't actually know that any lives were truly in jeopardy, as Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen assessed. I do know, though, that it is not ethical to keep secrets from the public that could be of potential importance to us. We have aright to be informed about what our government is doing, especially during a war that is not only unjust, but also has a significant impact on our daily lives. The war in Afghanistan's effects upon the American people are multi--faceted. If the feds decide to continue the war, then we have a right to know everything about it.
WikiLeaks has been helpful in the past, and although nothing of utmost significance has been unveiled in this particular case, I feel that they were doing the right thing, not simply satisfying a "need to make a point". Also, as Jonathan mentioned, they have been responsible in protecting potentially dangerous information and those who could be at risk.
The ethical conflict in this article is whether or not 75,000 classified documents about the Afghanistan war should have been published on the website WikiLeaks. One side can argue that the public has to right to know what’s going on but the opposing side can argue that the United States has a right to keep these documents confidential to protect the people who are involved.
I sympathize with the side that wants to keep the documents confidential to protect the people who are involved. The people in these documents agreed to provide the government with information because they believed they would be protected and we should not break that promise. Society is always trying to figure out what the government is hiding and trying to expose the government’s information but I believe the government keeps this information confidential for good reasons – if there’s something that we should know, they would tell us. Also, people are always going to demand that the government releases their most privy information to the public – this puts the entire country at risk. There needs to be a line to draw about the information the public can have access to.
Aristotle’s Golden Mean theory focuses on the actor, stating that “virtue lies between extremes” and it is up to the actor to decide where to fall on the spectrum. In this case, the spectrum is providing information and not providing information. I would learn more towards the not providing information side because it protects the public from panicking because of exposure to too much information and protecting those who trust out government.
I’m having a hard time sympathizing with the government’s side in this article because the information that was released on the website wikilinks may be information that could lead to the end of the war. This information, if leaked to the public could possibly lead to some sort of public revolt leading to a swift end of the war. The government worked very hard to keep this information secret but if it is information that should be available to the public they have no right to deny us the information. Without the press and media, the government would be able to perform any task at hand without any form of checks and balances. When a government behavior goes unchecked, they are able to compile tons of secrets that they are hiding from the public.
Because of this, I believe Wikilinks made ethically the right releasing the information the public because it will pose as a means to keep the government honest. They will no longer be able to hide information from the public because every American has the right to know what is going on in the world, even if it isn’t in the government’s best interests.
The ethical conflict in this article is whether classified government information should be classified or not and whether Wikileaks was right in releasing these documents to the public. I personally don't like the idea of the government keeping secrets but, if it is for the safety of others, even one or two people then I think it is right. In this article there is never a finger pointed to anyone who was harmed in the release of these documents, but if they had reached the wrong hands people could have been hurt or killed. Even if no one has the website is still at fault for endangering the lives of others for the sake of providing the public with classified information. I feel that if these documents were made public in the first place, they could have easily ended up in enemy hands. The government kept this secret to protect and American citizens should be comfortable with protecting the lives of others instead of being nosey and trying to "out" our governments secrets.
The ethical conflict is over the decision of the leak of documents that could possibly endanger the national security. I feel that we, as the general public, should have a right to know what our government is concealing from us, especially if the information could potentially harm the people involved. But like Kiersten said, I believe that to an extent we should not know every little detail.
I'm leaning towards taking the side of Wikileaks partially because I've always been suspicious of our government and its methods to do what's best for the people. And in the long run, I feel like it's more beneficial to us to know what is going on for our well-being.
Throughout the history of this nation the government has always had secrets, whether they be military, domestic, foreign, what have you. One of the reasons that the government keeps these secrets is probably that they are afraid of what people would do with the information. In war time, whether you agree with the war or not, the government usually takes more precautions with its information in order to protect people. Asking who is, or will be hurt because of the release of the information is a perfectly good question? I really don't know who has been or will be hurt by the release of certain documents and information, but what if its true? Is it right to risk the lives of people this way even if it is unclear if there really is a risk. I'm not saying this country's citizens should be robots and do and believe everything the government tells you, but its not that black and white. This is a very gray area and should be looked at so.
The major ethical conflict is if it is right for the government to keep information for the public or if it was wrong for the information to be spread if it is capable of endangering troops.
I feel like I sympathize more with the idea that everyone should be allowed to have the information they want because it is necessary in a society of media hungry people. They want the attention of people and I am sure that the fact that these documents were denounced makes them all the more interesting. It says that there was a possibility that troops would be hurt from this but they are older documents that are no longer relevant. The potential consequences should have been assessed but the overall intrigue is greater. We are not privy to the secrets of the government and are supposed to accept everything as a secret because it will benefit us in the long run but as a democratic and free society the public needs to be informed. N
i agree -- it's a gray area -- but we still have to cross it.
please think about the nature of secrecy. consider if secrets are congenial to democracy. consider the First Amendment and why it exists and the theory of the press that underlies it.
consider also that this isn't really one decision but three: the soldier leaks it, the Web site gives it to the press, the press publishes it. are all wrong? are all right? are some wrong? some right?
In the New York Times article, "
Gates Assails WikiLeaks Over Release of Reports"
there is an ethical conflict over whether classified government information should be kept from the public and if Wikileaks was correct in releasing the documents to the masses. I have mixed feelings over which argument has the more ethical stance. On one side i believe that the U.S. government has the right to keep certain information from the public in order to protect the citizens; however, the other side is that far too much information is kept from us which brings about the question, how much do we really know? I think it is important to hear the truth from our government but knowing potentially harmful details is unnecessary - therefore, i think the content of the Wikileaks should be in question when deciding whether or not Manning and Assange were being ethical. I am completely torn on who's side to take. I think both the government and Wikileaks have potentially ethical reasons for their decisions.
As most stated, the ethical issue at hand is whether or not WikiLeaks should exist or if they have a right to publish those documents. Open reading the WikiLeaks, specific information that was once hidden from the general public is now revealed. The government is constantly trying to "protect" the people by showing them very little, or sugar coating whatever is going on so maybe we don't "freak out" or truly know what's going on. Yet I personally believe we do have the right as citizens to know exactly what's going on. That being said, however, there are many people that might not be able to handle whatever is distributed or whatever they read, thus adding to more of a mistrust with their government. Should we continue to live in views of ignorance? Where we're shut out? Or should we begin to understand what's really going on in the world?
I agree with Howie how we must look at all three aspects of publishing: first at the soldier, then the Website, then the press. Are they all wrong or right? I think if one's at fault then the other must be so. Right? It's such a difficult thing to look at though because it is the press's job to release information to the public and wouldn't it be wrong of them to just let that information sit in a box if they had seen it? I don't know. I don't know.
The public news media most definitely has an ethical responsibility to provide information to the public that exposes the wrong doings of our government. However, it is a struggle to be able to protect the public while also protecting those involved with classified missions or operations. This creates an ethical conflict of what truly is in the best interest of the American people. Personally, I think that the media often goes too far trying to expose stories, not for the journalism, but for the ratings. The media is constantly trying to get the story first, whatever the cost is. With issues like the war in Iraq and leaking classified documents, it is difficult to side with either the media or the government. I believe that if the American people are being misled by the government (which one can argue we are) and serious conflicts arise because of it, whistle-blowing needs to be done. But the question is, to what extent? And to what cost? My father was a Lt. Col. in Army Special Forces, and was part of very top secret and classified missions that only few knew about. If documents were leaked involving a mission he was on, his life would be in even more danger than before, having his safety and whereabouts completely blown. Wouldn't it be counter productive to have soldiers killed because information was leaked, with the goal of ending the war in mind? So in this case, I do side with the US Government, which is something I rarely do. The media has a responsibility to protect the American people, which includes the soldiers fighting overseas. If documents containing extremely classified information are leaked, the safety of soldiers, informants, missions, operations, and foreign relations are all at risk. It is too great a risk to be taken in my opinion. Regarding the website, I applaud them in exposing wrongdoings of our government in situations like 'Atkin' has stated. However, as people who are involved with leaking documents, they should also respect that these are extremely delicate in nature and the consequences of releasing them need to be fully examined before posting. By putting more lives at risk for the sake of exposing classified documents, I believe it is 100% ethically wrong. These documents aren't the key to ending the war in Iraq, so the real question is, what value do they really have? Was it worth it to risk all of the above just to expose the documents? And since they have been exposed, what are the future consequences? In my opinion, although I believe in whistle-blowing, I think WikiLeaks made a big mistake exposing these documents. I'm glad to see that the government is trying to handle the situation well and protecting those who were affected by this incident. Hopefully, things will smooth over soon, and WikiLeaks will make a new policy regarding documents involving war related information.
The ethical conflict presented in the story is a conflict between the public's right to know and the safety of national security documents and informants.
I sympathize with the government in this case because the release of the documents without censoring names of informants, areas, etc endangers the well being of both men and women serving in the army as well as enemy informants who are obviously critical in providing information about the enemy and their movements.
The ethical principle I think applies here is the principle of double effect.
comments are now closed. . . liz, can you explain the principle of double effect? i'm not familiar with it.
First of all I don't know how many terrorist were accessing WikiLeaks until the Press and Media brought an issue like this to sight. I mean honestly do you think Bin Laden drinks his morning coffee updates his FaceBook and then skims WikiLeaks to uncover secrets that could potentially help his side? I doubt it. So in keeping with a democralistic view of how our democracy should be run I think there was no wrong in WikiLeaks publishing what they did. It even says in the article that they held back 15,000 documents for safety reasons, so they're using their better judgment on what not to publish. In my opinion our government is pretty corrupt and it's this heliocentric thought that we think we're better than everyone else that's causing us to even go to war in the first place. So I think sites like these should be applauded. And secondly, I doubt highly sensitive documents of our government’s doings and agendas are easily accessed by anyone other than those that work directly for the government. People who have no reason to release such highly classified information because in doing, so would be like shooting themselves in the foot. It is said these were found by either an intelligence analyst and or Private Manning both of which aren't protected by the government like people working in high positions for the Pentagon for example. The rest of the country could crash and crumble but people working and who have worked directly for the government would still be doing just fine. So information made available to those will never be seen by anyone. I think WikiLeaks used its better judgment and supported Aristotle's Golden Mean by finding and releasing just the right amount of information without really putting any lives at risk. While bringing to light or Democracy is not really a Democracy at all, but rather a pseudo-democracy benefiting those in high position and high wealth
Double effect is something I came across in browsing the internet. This is the information I have:
"An action that is good in itself that has two effects--an intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect--is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil."
Here is a link to where I found this information and it is further expanded upon - http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:principle-of-double-effect&Itemid=171 . It's a website regarding healthcare ethics, but I think it applies.
Post a Comment