This week the news is swamped with Cablegate stories. With this latest Wikileaks release, we’re being given unusual insight into the daily workings of American embassies around the world. These often blunt and occasionally unexpected messages are causing controversy in nearly every affected nation, making international relations in a tough economic period even more tense than they might otherwise be. As we face the worst escalation of hostilities the Korean peninsula has faced since the Armistice in 1953, as an aging population weakens the European work force and financial infrastructure, as here at home in Canada we face a divided electorate and a consistent minority government, crippled in its ability to accomplish any agenda at all, we are confronted by yet another challenge.
Today, I will attempt to address address the morality of the leak of this information. Is Wikileaks morally justified in releasing the documents? Could they have a moral obligation to do so? Are they, to be blunt, right to publicize internal government documents?
I suppose that first, to give a foundation on which to build, I should give the ethical theory I’ve accepted. My apologies if it isn’t fully coherent, since I haven’t yet tried to explain it. The purpose of morality is the survival of the society in which a given moral code has developed. This is, of course, an anthropological explanation, but it continues to hold merit in examining modern morality. Why should we not murder? Because if murder were an acceptable solution to our problems, an awful lot of people would end up the morgue awfully fast. The continued wellbeing of society depends on our moral strictures (you’ll note, of course, how most moral codes agree on a large number of restrictions and prohibitions).
In light of this perspective on morality, then, how do we determine the validity of the Wikileaks release? By examining it’s usefulness to society (the good given to society by the action). Of course from an American perspective, then, the leak can be nothing but immoral: an evil act, counter to the welfare of the state. Perhaps even, as one congressman suggested, an act of terrorism. The attitudes of many nations are souring towards The United States, and the world is growing increasingly skeptical of American foreign policy. Meanwhile long-term policies are becoming evident that otherwise wouldn’t. Clearly then, we have our answer.
But, as humanists, can we stop here? America’s roughly 300 million citizens are but a small part of the world. We cannot stop until we have considered the needs of a world society. This, I think, is where the application of my system of morality becomes truly interesting. Our tribe is no longer the band of hunter-gatherers or the nation-state that it once was. Now, our tribe is all of humanity.
We’ve accepted that international relations are being damaged by the leak. While this increase in international tension is hardly beneficial, one must consider its cause: not the leak, but the behaviour it describes, since of course if there were no questionable messages there could be no outrage. The dispatches give reason to be concerned of American behaviour, as well as that of the other governments implicated second-hand. The revelation of corruption, incompetence, unethical behaviour, and even mere impoliteness in our leaders and their dealings with each other should be considered good for society: we are given the opportunity to stand and tell them this sort of behaviour won’t be accepted.
And so we are left in a classic ethical dilemma: does the good of a deed outweigh the evil. Is the chance to put an end to the poor behaviour of our leaders worth the risks posed by an increase in international tension during an already tense time? I believe that the potential for serious conflict in the world today outweighs any possible benefit of the leak. Even with the reported sifting of the data for anything that might immediately compromise individuals, the risks remain too great.
This is an interesting take on the whole thing. I have to wonder if, with souring opinions towards America, the leaked cables will cause a new issue or simply accelerate one that would likely have (figuratively or literally) blown up anyway.
Interesting view. I really never considered the moral questions on this debate – simply the political questions (then again, that should come as little surprise). That said, I agree with your conclusion – that the risks remain too great.
The other moral question is whether the American government has a responsibility to the rest of the world, or only to protect the interests of their own electorate. I’d suggest that, in the context that the Americans and other nations DO have different interests, that morally, it is the responsibility of the American government to protect their own national interests where conflict exists, to the exclusion of others, to the greatest extent to which they are capable. As is true of every other national government.
While different nations do have different interests, I maintain that a global interests should trump them. Nations can go their own way to a point, but when the interests of others are actually violated, the nations should be stopped short.