Advertisement

A Justification of Political Whistleblowing

  • Daniele Santoro
  • Manohar Kumar
Chapter
  • 345 Downloads
Part of the Philosophy and Politics - Critical Explorations book series (PPCE, volume 6)

Abstract

In this chapter we provide a justification of political whistleblowing and articulate some criteria for the permissibility of disclosures. In the first part we discuss the main criticisms against political whistleblowing. In particular, we address the objections from the breach of obligation and trust, lack of patriotism, harm to national security, vigilantism, lack of accountability, and imperfect information. In the second part we define the epistemic circumstances of disclosure, and we specify three conditions for the permissibility of political whistleblowing: the communicative constraints, intent, and public interest.

Keywords

Political whistleblowing Justification Public interest Communicative conditions Permissibility 

References

  1. Aquinas, Thomas. 1988. Of Killing (Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 64, art. 7). In On Law, Morality, and Politics, ed. William P. Baumgarth and Richard J. Regan, 226–227. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, David. 2013. The Solitary Leaker. The New York Times, June 11. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html. Accessed 8 Feb 2018.
  3. Brownlee, Kimberley. 2012. Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bok, Sissela. 1983. Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  5. Delmas, Candice. 2015. The ethics of government whistleblowing. Social Theory and Practice 41 (1): 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dilanian, Ken. 2014. Report puts Snowden-like leaks as the no. 2 threat to U.S. security. Los Angeles Times. 29 January. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/29/world/la-fg-worldwide-threats-20140130. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  7. Dumsday, Travis. 2009. On cheering Charles Bronson: The ethics of vigilantism. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellsberg, Daniel. 2010. Secrecy and national security whistleblowing. Social Research 77 (3): 773–804.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, J. Edward. 2014. Was Snowden’s heist a foreign espionage operation? The Wall Street Journal. May 9. https://www.wsj.com/articles/edward-jay-epstein-was-snowdens-heist-a-foreign-espionage-operation-1399674409. Accessed 8 Feb 2018.
  10. ———. 2017. How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  11. Green, Leslie. 2012. Legal obligation and authority. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/legal-obligation/. Accessed 20 Feb 2018.
  12. Grice, Paul. 1989. Logic and Conversation (1975). In Studies in the Way of Words, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Horton, John. 1992. Political Obligation. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, Les. 1996. What is vigilantism? The British Journal of Criminology 36 (2): 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar, Manohar, and Daniele Santoro. 2017. A justification of whistleblowing. Philosophy & Social Criticism 43 (7): 669–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, Youngjae. 2012. Punishing disloyalty? Treason, espionage, and the transgression of political boundaries. Law and Philosophy 31 (3): 299–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewis, Paul. 2013. Veteran civil rights leader: Snowden acted in tradition of civil disobedience. The Guardian. 7 August. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/john-lewis-civil-rights-edward-snowden. Accessed 8 Feb 2018.
  19. Mangan, Joseph. 1949. An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 10: 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McIntyre, Alison. 2014. Doctrine of double effect. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/double-effect/. Accessed 15 Mar 2017.
  21. Mill, John S. 2003. On Liberty (1859). ed. David Bromwich and George Kateb. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, Seumas. 2017a. Institutional Corruption: A Study in Applied Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2017b. The ethics of whistleblowing, leaking and disclosure. In The Palgrave Handbook of Security, Risk and Intelligence, ed. Robert Dover, Huw Dylan, and Michael Goodman, 497–494. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Nathanson, Stephen. 1993. Patriotism, Morality, and Peace. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Raz, Joseph. 1990. Practical Reason and Norms (1975). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rottman, Gabe. 2014. On leak prosecutions, Obama takes it to 11. (Or should I say 526?). ACLU blog, 14 October. https://www.aclu.org/blog/leak-prosecutions-obama-takes-it-11-or-should-we-say-526?redirect=blog/free-speech/leak-prosecutions-obama-takes-it-11-or-should-we-say-526. Accessed 8 Feb 2018.
  27. Sagar, Rahul. 2013a. Secrets and Leaks: The Dilemma of State Secrecy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2013b. Who decides what’s secret: Obama or Snowden? CNN. 14 June. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/14/opinion/sagarsnowden-secrets/. Accessed 8 Feb 2018.
  29. Santoro, Daniele. 2013. Legal responsibility. A pragmatic perspective. In Pragmatism, Law, and Language, ed. Graham Hubbs and Douglas Lind, 98–114. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Scanlon, M. Thomas. 2008. Moral Dimensions. Permissibility, Meaning, Blame. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniele Santoro
    • 1
  • Manohar Kumar
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society, ILCHUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Social Sciences and HumanitiesIndraprastha Institute of Information Technology, DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations