4 ms·
Why should he be automatically defined by his intentions, good or bad? There are plenty of crimes for which good intentions are not a defense.
by sliverstorm 11y ago
Why should he be automatically defined by his intentions, good or bad? There are plenty of crimes for which good intentions are not a defense.
- deciplex 11y agoThere are also crimes for which they are. In fact I think we can judge him on outcomes alone and he will still come out ahead, but even in the face of adverse outcomes, the fact that he sought to expose these very illegal programs with repercussions that echo around the globe, means that at the very least he deserves better than de-facto exile and the threat of assassination.
- discardorama 11y agoIt's like the Good Samaritan law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law If you are a doctor going to save a life, it's OK to violate the speed limit.
- nathan_long 11y agoHow can you judge someone on anything but intentions? Nobody knows the future, nor can we ever say what would have happened if an action hadn't been taken. If drove drunk and ran over a pedestrian, and he turned out to be a mass murderer on the way to strike again, you should still go to jail. You didn't intend good or act morally based on your knowledge at the time, and society would do well to discourage people from following your example. We'll never know all the outcomes from Snowden's actions, good or bad. We'll never know what would have happened if he'd kept quiet. But why did he do it, and what did he believe would happen if he did or didn't speak up? That's the question. Not easy to answer, but it's the moral question.