- Image via Wikipedia
Wikileaks has made the news once again for leaking confidential documents. This latest batch consists of 251,287 cables from Unites States embassies. While most of the documents are not classified, some are and this is a matter of concern to American officials.
While there are various legal concerns regarding these documents, my main concern is with the ethics of this leaking. I will consider various arguments in the course of the discussion.
One argument in favor of the leak is the classic Gadfly Argument (named in honor of Socrates because of his claim to the role of the gadfly to the city of Athens). The gist of the argument is that the people in government need to be watched and criticized so as to decrease the likelihood that they will conduct and conceal misdeeds in shadows and silence.
Given that governments have an extensive track record of misdeeds, it certainly makes sense to be concerned about what the folks running the show might really be doing under the cloak of secrecy and national security. If it is assumed that being part of the government does not exempt these people from moral accountability, then it would seem to follow that leaking their misdeeds is, in general, a morally acceptable action. After all, it would seem to be rather absurd to argue that people have a moral right to keep their misdeeds a secret.
The obvious reply to the Gadfly Argument is that even if it is granted, it does not cover all of the leaked material. After all, not all of the material deals with moral questionable activities that should be thus exposed to the light of day. As such, more would be needed to justify such a leak.
A second obvious argument is based on the assumption that in a democracy the citizens have a moral right to know what the folks in the government are doing in their name. This right can be based on the idea that the citizens are collectively responsible for the actions of their government and hence have a right (and need) to know what is actually going on. This right could also be based on the notion that the citizens need to be properly informed so as to make decisions. Since power comes from the people, one might argue that the people have a right to know about how that power is exercised and the information to (in theory) exercise it wisely.
To use a specific example, given the support the United States provides to Saudi Arabia, the citizens of the United States would seem to have a right to know that the Saudis provide funding to anti-American terrorist groups. That information seems quite relevant in deciding how we should deal with Saudi Arabia and to conceal such things from citizens seems to be rather wrong.
To use another example, given the truckloads of public money being dumped into Afghanistan, the American public (and the world) would seem to have the right to know about the widespread corruption.
The obvious reply to this approach is to contend that the good of the people sometimes requires that the state keep secrets from them and others. In support of this, the usual sort of utilitarian argument can be trotted out: to create the most good for the people (and, of course, the world) the United States must sometimes engage in secret activities that might cause problems if they were known. However, this secrecy is justified for the greater good that it creates.
This argument does have significant appeal. After all, the main function of a state is to protect the citizens and ensure the good of the people. This might (and perhaps often does) require actions that might be morally questionable or at least rather embarrassing. As such, for the good of the people, these things must be concealed. Diplomacy, it can be contended, requires considerable duplicity, two-faced behavior and various social games that require secrecy. In this regard, diplomacy between diplomats is very much like diplomacy between friends and co-workers: to get along it is sometimes best that we do not know everything we really think about each other. As such, these leaks could be harmful to international relations and thus the leaking might be wrong.
There are also legitimate reasons to conceal things that are not morally questionable or embarrassing. For example, military secrets or details of intelligence operations seems to fall under the realm of things that can generally be legitimately kept secret. Such leaks could be morally wrong.
This discussion leads to my final point. Given that there can be legitimate grounds for secrecy and real harms arising from leaks, there is a clear need to judge what to leak and what not to leak with due wisdom and moral authority. While the folks at Wikileak claim that they review the documents, it is still a matter of grave concern as to how well the material is assessed before leaking. After all, leaking information about vile misdeeds or exposing wicked deceptions is laudable. Leaking information that undermines attempts to resolve conflicts peacefully or puts people at risk needlessly is certainly morally dubious at best.
Determining who should decide what should be known and what should be secret is a rather difficult matter. Naturally, the folks in the government are likely to be biased and hence their judgment cannot be completely trusted. I have my doubts about the wisdom and moral authority of the folks at Wikileaks, but the need for gadflies does seem clear. However, it would be nice to have gadflies as wise and as ethical as Socrates.
This is loaded with strawmen. No time to address them all.
Where are these vile misdeeds that you speak of in these cables?
Mike, for your edification, people don’t talk about illegal activities on State Department Cables. I read these every day at my job. That would be stupid. It’s a good way to get in trouble with the Justice Department simply spraying “misdeeds” all over the place.
Sometimes your view of the world is like that of someone who just read a cyberpunk novel and believed every word of it.
“Naturally, the folks in the government are likely to be biased and hence their judgment cannot be completely trusted” Whose can? yours?
“To use a specific example, given the support the United States provides to Saudi Arabia, the citizens of the United States would seem to have a right to know that the Saudis provide funding to anti-American terrorist groups. That information seems quite relevant in deciding how we should deal with Saudi Arabia and to conceal such things from citizens seems to be rather wrong.”
They don’t know this? Americans don’t know there are Saudi elements that give money to terrorists?
Same here: “To use another example, given the truckloads of public money being dumped into Afghanistan, the American public (and the world) would seem to have the right to know about the widespread corruption.” No one knows about this. How is the government keeping this from people?
Mike, the major flaw in all your arguments about wikileaks is that you have no idea what actually makes something classified. You think classified means “I’m in the goivernment and i don’t want anyone to read what I’m writing.” No. No. And no. It’s all about sources and methods.
You fail to effectively condemn Assange ( a war profiteer as much as any other). Most of what you write here is about hinting at government “misdeeds”. And you fail to prove that there are misdeeds that anyone really needs to know about. You also fail to show that more good has come out of this than bad. It’s easy from my end to see the bad over the good. Most of the interest in these papers is purient.
Yet again, you condone illegal behavior. It’s a no-brainer that anyone who knows of illegal government action should come forth. I would and everyone I know that works in the government would also, I believe would also. It doesn’t take a phd to know this. Yet you focus again on what “could” happen instead of what did happen: A person entrusted and sworn to protect his nation leaked secrets of lots of things that are not illegal but that do protect people in our nation and the interest of our allies. The secrets were given to an anarchistic (hence your liking of Assange) war profiteer and then given to everyone in trhe world. You condone this. This should give everyone a good idea on your angle for all your posts that make you look very soft onb terrorism, a position that you try to cover (unsuccessfully) with fiscal austerity and libertarian arguments.
I simply ask every one this: Do you want our system to be as Assange and the Army private that leaked this info have now made it? That any 20 year old failed soldier (he hated the Army, was not good at it, had his rifle bolt taken away by his commander because he wanted to kill himself) and another person who’s actually making money from these secrets (assange) to be able to decide what the enemy sees? I work in the intel field and I can tell you, that there are no deep-dark conspiracy plots, no-super-secret under-the-table deals that we write intel reports on. It’s all about people, and how we protect the people that work for us and that we work for.
1) Dr. L failed to prove that anything illegal has been leaked.
2) Fails to address that Rule of law is at state here
3) fails to sufficiently address the moral and professional failings of those involved in the leaking
4) Continues to state in various posts that law doesn’t matter that much. we should just do what we want.
5) fails to point out that there are comaprtmented channels for people to report illgeal activity. The government is NOT one big monolithic entity.
There are no strawmen fallacies in Mike’s post…there aren’t any fallacies, actually.
What I like most about Mike’s writing is the balanced discussion he tends to offer. It looks like you’re just misreading him, Magus.
Here’s an example:
You say, “Where are these vile misdeeds that you speak of in these cables?”
But, Mike never spoke of vile misdeeds in those cables: He says, “While the folks at Wikileak claim that they review the documents, it is still a matter of grave concern as to how well the material is assessed before leaking. After all, leaking information about vile misdeeds or exposing wicked deceptions is laudable. Leaking information that undermines attempts to resolve conflicts peacefully or puts people at risk needlessly is certainly morally dubious at best.”
The bit about “vile misdeeds” is simply part of an explanans to his main point that we should be concerned about Wikileaks’ judgment in releasing what it does.
Throughout the course of your comment, you actually agree with each point Mike makes in the above quote, Magus.
I pointed out several strawmen; I’ll do so again:
***”To use a specific example, given the support the United States provides to Saudi Arabia, the citizens of the United States would seem to have a right to know that the Saudis provide funding to anti-American terrorist groups. That information seems quite relevant in deciding how we should deal with Saudi Arabia and to conceal such things from citizens seems to be rather wrong.”
This is not a real problem. People know about this. There is tons more literature written about it than secret documents.
***To use another example, given the truckloads of public money being dumped into Afghanistan, the American public (and the world) would seem to have the right to know about the widespread corruption.”
Government officials don’t talk about this openly all the time? So again–Mike made up a problem that is not in fact a problem.
I’ll also point out, Asur, that i’m aware of Mike’s stance on this, both from knowing him personally for 20 years and from reading several other posts he’s done on it. He cloaks his argument in words like “One school of thought” or “some say”. In many cases tha means he thinks that but doesn’t want to say it.
He does not SPECIFICALLY state that what Assange is doing is wrong. he dances around it. Because in many ways he agrees with him. Read his older posts. Being a blogger is like being a senator running for president; it sucks because you have a voting record.
I do not agree with Mike becuase–as I stated–Mike refuses to address the fact that there are LEGAL ways to take care of illegal activities within the government; none of which were used. Instead, two people with agendas way beyong “righting government wrongs” have captivated Internet World. Nowhere does Mike say: Assange needs to stop this. He’s hurting people. It’s all: ” Well he may be hurting people but he may be also helping. But I as a philosopher can make no judgement. Unless of course assange openly admits to being a Republican….”
But on the face of Mike’s argument is that if wikileaks is hurting America it should do those things that hurt America and if it’s helping America than it should continue do to do them. No kidding.
But underneath this argument and placed in the context of Mike’s worldview, it is a tacit endorsement for Assange’s activity.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. I don’t seem to be doing that here.
Your point is not that I am making a straw man, but rather that my examples are not relevant because people already know about those problems (that we support a state that supports terror and that Afghanistan officials are corrupt). If people already know all these things, then leaking such information would not (obviously) be justified on the grounds that people need to know. Of course, if people already know a great deal about what has been leaked, then the leak is really not much of a leak.
>He does not SPECIFICALLY state that what Assange is doing is wrong. he dances around it. Because in many ways he agrees with him. Read his older posts. Being a blogger is like being a senator running for president; it sucks because you have a voting record.Mike refuses to address the fact that there are LEGAL ways to take care of illegal activities within the government; none of which were used. Instead, two people with agendas way beyong “righting government wrongs” have captivated Internet World. Nowhere does Mike say: Assange needs to stop this. He’s hurting people. It’s all: ” Well he may be hurting people but he may be also helping. But I as a philosopher can make no judgement. Unless of course assange openly admits to being a Republican….”But on the face of Mike’s argument is that if wikileaks is hurting America it should do those things that hurt America and if it’s helping America than it should continue do to do them. No kidding.But underneath this argument and placed in the context of Mike’s worldview, it is a tacit endorsement for Assange’s activity.<
I do endorse exposing misdeeds and evil doing. The wicked should be exposed and punished. However, I am against exposing information that leads to wrongful harms. Assange conveys the impression that he thinks America is generally up to no good (he talks about "crushing bastards" or some such thing). He might be sincere in his view, but he has a rather biased view of the matter. I have some serious doubts about his wisdom and moral authority.
“I have my doubts about the wisdom and moral authority of the folks at Wikileaks’
weak. i saw real outrage in the patdown post. But a patdown never killed anyone.
Mike,
You make general statements all the time and then attribute them to the positions of your opponents so that you can chop them down. And many times it’s an unfair assessment of Republican stances and motives. For instance: Your posts on Republicans as the Party of “NO”. What an over simplification and Strawman. I often find so many and they’re so woven into the article that I don’t bother addressing them directly, I only state my
disagreement with your findings. (Most times)
That the government is not open about the fact that Saudis Fund terrorism is a straw man. An exaggertion of the problem which is really that Mike thinks everyone ought to be able to read the specifics of the problem. The 9-11 Commission report clearly outlines Saudi Funding as do many other works. You are trying to create a clever illusion and your beliefs and political leanings sneak through. That it is only a world of shadowy underhanded dealings, that it is only about profit and oil and mercenaries and corporate gain and pollution etc…… I understand that your argument about the saudis is to explain a philisophical point, but you employ that method as to imply that the government is sneeking around with known terrorists to get oil. For one thing, we get more oil from Canada than the Saudis, but that’s for another post.
As Robert Gates recently said, the most striking thing about the released cables is that they fall in line with what our government says in public. Who does not know that the Pakistani government is playing both ends?
The article reaks of conspiratorial undertones that have little basis in reality. The title of the article deceives one into thinking a moral judgement will be cast against or for assange’s actions. Instead you give us a laundry list of when it’s ok to leak stuff, implying too that the goverment can’t police its own–which is another strawman. Sometimes there are problems with the government policing its own. This hardly seems like the way to handle things.
I can’t be the only one that sees this.
In discussing the party of No, I did consider the complexities of the matter. Also, I did consider that my assessment could be in error: “This is not to say that all Republicans are engaged in such cynical political moves at the expense of the people. After all, there are no doubt Republicans who act from sincere devotion to conservative principles and for the good of the people (as they see it).”
Are you claiming that I got the Republicans wrong? That they actually have not focused on blocking Obama and the Democrats legislation? That a leading Republican did not set as his goal keeping Obama from being elected in 2012?
To straw man them, I would need to be representing them in a distorted way. I seem to be describing them as they are,
As I pointed out, I was not distorting matters. By saying that Americans have a right to know about what the Saudis are really doing in regards to terrorism, I am not creating a straw man. As I pointed out, if you think everyone knows this, then you are claiming I made a factual error. Being mistaken is different from creating a straw man.
I do give conditions under which it is ethical to leak. If you look at things like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and so on, I think it is clear that the state cannot always be relied on to police itself. I never claim that the state cannot police itself. There are plenty of cases in which the state handled corruption within its own ranks.
Now, if I had said that you had said the state can always police itself and that journalists should all be executed if they dare speak against the most holy nation of America, then I’d be making a straw man.
Just because you think I am wrong does not mean my views are straw men.
“Just because you think I am wrong does not mean my views are straw men.”
Thank God. I’ve heard the term “straw man” tossed around so loosely on this blog, I was beginning to believe that a “straw man” is basically any statement i may make that someone may disagree with. Instead, it’s just one more entry in the growing “Make It on the Fly Lexicon” appearing after “intellectual”, “rhetorical question(@The Terrorists are Winning” –my 11/25 7:14pm reply)” and “socialist”.
Even better, I now discover that all those times that someone intentionally misconstrues or misquotes what I’ve written I was merely being attacked by “straw men”. I’ll have my Bic butane handy next time. 🙂 Thanks. I learn something new every day on here.
No, erik. It is misrepresenting the opinions of your opponents or changing the facts about what your opponents do so as to make them easy targets for your arguments.
And yes, you employ the method a lot too. Only much less effectively than Dr. L. That is: More easily detected by the average blogger.
Still wound up about the intellectual thing? I have a cure: Go change the oil in your car.
I’d me much obliged if you’d point out my specific straw men when you see them. I’d like the opportunity to point out the error of your interpretation in each instance. I’m certainly going to point out the ones I detect from now on.
And. I’m not wound up about “the intellectual thing”. I’m wound up about some of you on here using words in , shall I say,”unconventional” ways to buttress your point or create a, shall we say, give a “fresh” and “questionable” direction to a discussion.
If you throw a bomb into a crowd you might kill a couple of bad guys. A document dump like Wikileaks is the moral equivalent of the bomb in the crowd.
I don’t see how the indiscriminate leaking of thousands of confidential documents can ever be justified. Perhaps a case can be made that selective leaking to expose wrongdoing is justified, but that is far from Wikileaking.
And that’s exactly my problem with this post. It’s Titled: The Ethics of Wikileaking. That being so, I would assume that it would speak the moral issues of Wikileaks specific actions. It does not. It speaks in genetral terms of when it’s good or evil to public info, not as to whether Wikileaks actions were themselves evil.
Assange is and should be an enemy of the state.
What true good has he done by doing this? What good changes does anyone see?
Well, as much as I despise the man (and more specifically, Pfc. Manning) for what he has done, the amusement factor from much of the diplomatic chatter has been quite entertaining. A shame that a good number of good people are going to die. Also, work for people such as yourself is going to get much harder, possibly putting your life in danger. But for the rest of us, it’s like listening to the band play whilst theTitanic sinks. Perhaps we’re all doomed, but that was a nice rendition of “When Irish Eyes are Smiling”.
Good analogy. While there might be information in the leaks that should be leaked, just dumping everything like that seems rather irresponsible.
Just as with throwing bombs, the ethical concern is to make sure that the target deserves to be hit.
Greetings for yor site and for the post that helps people, readings and reading… We suggest our Ethics, Deontologia in Italy and Italian Good reading and work… Link to NotitiAE
http://notitiae.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/manuale-fotografia/
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted~
Are you properly stating the government’s position when you imply that they hide from the public the fact that some saudis fund terrorists?
Well, what I say is this:
“To use a specific example, given the support the United States provides to Saudi Arabia, the citizens of the United States would seem to have a right to know that the Saudis provide funding to anti-American terrorist groups. That information seems quite relevant in deciding how we should deal with Saudi Arabia and to conceal such things from citizens seems to be rather wrong.”
You are claiming, I gather, that I am making a straw man because the government has not concealed the fact that Saudis have been funding terrorist organizations and that the Wikileak of this information is thus not telling people anything new.
If this is true and evidence of this sort for Saudi terror support has been readily available before the leaks, then I must admit that my specific example was in error. However, I did not intend to distort or exaggerate the matter. This is what distinguishes merely being in error from making a straw man.
In any case, even if my specific example is in error (that is, the info about Saudi terror support was openly provided by the government and everyone already knew this before the leak) this does not show that my principle is in error. I can, for example, use Watergate as an example of when people have a right to know what is going on secretly in their government. Or various other examples, such as the Pentagon Paper.
While I am cast as a clueless Lefty who distorts things and apparently as someone woefully incompetent in his own profession (for example, that I regularly engage in making straw men), I do not seem to fit either of these charges.