5 ms·

It's more important to be just than consistent. Edit: Are there many cases of misguided whistleblowers that caused significant unintended harm while doing what

by samd 16y ago

It's more important to be just than consistent. Edit: Are there many cases of misguided whistleblowers that caused significant unintended harm while doing what they thought was right? It seems that in most cases the whistleblower feels strongly that something unethical is happening before they come out. I think that shows there is a strong enough deterrent against whistleblowing to prevent it being done casually. The administration does not need to punish this man for doing what was obviously the right thing to do.

amalcon 16y ago
Consistency is the very cornerstone of justice. I don't see how it's even possible to be just without being consistent.
- samd 16y ago
  It depends on what your ethical framework is. I'm a consequentialist, so whichever action produces better consequences I think is the right action regardless of the rules. You sound like a deontologist, to whom following the rules (not necessarily the law) is what it means to be ethical.
  - amalcon 16y ago
    It's more that I make a distinction between justice and ethics. Ethics is the philosophy of how rules should be made. Justice is sort of a meta-rule, mandated by the most popular ethical systems (utilitarianism, Rawlsian ethics, among a few others). Justice mandates that neither a rule nor its application unduly advantage any party over any other. Therefore, there should not be a rule that prohibits people with a particular skin pigmentation from using a particular seat on a bus. Likewise, enforcement of rules that prohibit actions that victimize others should not be suspended when local law enforcement doesn't like the victim. I suspect I don't need to explain why it's difficult to get such equitable enforcement without consistency.
    - samd 16y ago
      If justice is just a meta-rule which says that all rules in an ethical framework should be followed then the only rule in consequentialism is: "do whatever leads to the best outcome." Doing whatever leads to the best outcome can involve breaking laws or applying other rules only at certain times and to certain people. As long as you are acting to produce the best consequences you are acting justly.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        You aren't considering the externality of blowing the whistle on bad contracts by leaking confidential information: that you are setting the stage for other people to exercise their judgement poorly as well with information that is much more hazardous to leak.
      - gills 16y ago
        This makes me recall an old cliche..."the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
      - amalcon 16y ago
        This is precisely where our definitions of justice differ. I think something can be beneficial without being just, and vice versa. Justice is just sort of beneficial overall, so we shouldn't violate it without having a really good reason. This "really good reason" thing is what executive pardons (and similar powers) are for, and even that is abused pretty heavily. Justice does not mandate that all rules be followed. It mandates that all rules be equitable, and be enforced equitably. Finally, while using the rule "Do whatever leads to the best outcome" is a perfectly good way to operate as an individual, it is unenforceable on a societal level. This is why we have other rules. It's impossible to figure out just what has the best consequences, so we try to produce more concrete rules that improve consequences overall (hopefully which don't have too many consequences of their own). Following the personal rule "Do whatever leads to the best outcome", even when it goes against society's laws, is called civil disobedience. When done for a good cause, it is not generally vilified. The catch to civil disobedience is that you must accept the consequences of your actions.
tptacek 16y ago
This article discusses policy. All manner of principles are at play in policy. Fairness is an important principle. So is security. So is liberty. Many of these principles are in tension. It is unlikely that any formal policy will resolve those tensions in all cases. Meanwhile, you have a system in which many tens of thousands of people are necessarily exposed to sensitive, confidential, or classified information. Some of it impacts national security. Some of it impacts the economy. Some of it jeopardizes the fairness of government proceedings. Some of it conceals government malpractice. We can't manage that system that presumes to honor people's personal judgement about what is or isn't worth classifying. And not for nothing, but "these programs are a waste of money" doesn't sound like a valid reason to break the faith on classified material involving intelligence operations.
- samd 16y ago
  Was he merely concerned with financial waste or is that how he sold the problem to his superiors?

by samd 16y ago

amalcon 16y ago

Consistency is the very cornerstone of justice. I don't see how it's even possible to be just without being consistent.

samd 16y ago
It depends on what your ethical framework is. I'm a consequentialist, so whichever action produces better consequences I think is the right action regardless of the rules. You sound like a deontologist, to whom following the rules (not necessarily the law) is what it means to be ethical.
- amalcon 16y ago
  It's more that I make a distinction between justice and ethics. Ethics is the philosophy of how rules should be made. Justice is sort of a meta-rule, mandated by the most popular ethical systems (utilitarianism, Rawlsian ethics, among a few others). Justice mandates that neither a rule nor its application unduly advantage any party over any other. Therefore, there should not be a rule that prohibits people with a particular skin pigmentation from using a particular seat on a bus. Likewise, enforcement of rules that prohibit actions that victimize others should not be suspended when local law enforcement doesn't like the victim. I suspect I don't need to explain why it's difficult to get such equitable enforcement without consistency.
  - samd 16y ago
    If justice is just a meta-rule which says that all rules in an ethical framework should be followed then the only rule in consequentialism is: "do whatever leads to the best outcome." Doing whatever leads to the best outcome can involve breaking laws or applying other rules only at certain times and to certain people. As long as you are acting to produce the best consequences you are acting justly.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      You aren't considering the externality of blowing the whistle on bad contracts by leaking confidential information: that you are setting the stage for other people to exercise their judgement poorly as well with information that is much more hazardous to leak.
    - gills 16y ago
      This makes me recall an old cliche..."the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
    - amalcon 16y ago
      This is precisely where our definitions of justice differ. I think something can be beneficial without being just, and vice versa. Justice is just sort of beneficial overall, so we shouldn't violate it without having a really good reason. This "really good reason" thing is what executive pardons (and similar powers) are for, and even that is abused pretty heavily. Justice does not mandate that all rules be followed. It mandates that all rules be equitable, and be enforced equitably. Finally, while using the rule "Do whatever leads to the best outcome" is a perfectly good way to operate as an individual, it is unenforceable on a societal level. This is why we have other rules. It's impossible to figure out just what has the best consequences, so we try to produce more concrete rules that improve consequences overall (hopefully which don't have too many consequences of their own). Following the personal rule "Do whatever leads to the best outcome", even when it goes against society's laws, is called civil disobedience. When done for a good cause, it is not generally vilified. The catch to civil disobedience is that you must accept the consequences of your actions.

tptacek 16y ago

This article discusses policy. All manner of principles are at play in policy. Fairness is an important principle. So is security. So is liberty. Many of these principles are in tension. It is unlikely that any formal policy will resolve those tensions in all cases. Meanwhile, you have a system in which many tens of thousands of people are necessarily exposed to sensitive, confidential, or classified information. Some of it impacts national security. Some of it impacts the economy. Some of it jeopardizes the fairness of government proceedings. Some of it conceals government malpractice. We can't manage that system that presumes to honor people's personal judgement about what is or isn't worth classifying. And not for nothing, but "these programs are a waste of money" doesn't sound like a valid reason to break the faith on classified material involving intelligence operations.

samd 16y ago
Was he merely concerned with financial waste or is that how he sold the problem to his superiors?