There are a lot of pertinent ethical issues that arise from the documentary and the case of Julian Assange more broadly.
Knowledge as Power
Do the public have a right to know? What types of ethical considerations need to be taken into account in order to understand the politics of whistle-blowing? Did Julian Assange globalise whistle-blowing? Is taking information that is owned by the state (and if we follow the normative line in social contract theory, its citizens) a form of modern (information) piracy? Can information contained in the Wikileaks documents actually prevent the deployment of violence and weapons?
Knowledge as Governed
Do states have a right to ensure that secrets remain secret, despite their potential to expose flaws within the democratic fabric of their respective societies? Thailand, China and Iran blocked access to the Wikileaks website: was this the right thing to do?
Knowledge as Voice
It is a truism of war that 'war is hell'. There is no such thing as a clean war, despite attempts to encase violations of justice in the hygienic morality of the doctrine of double effect. Does Wikileaks offer a voice to the voiceless? There is some pretty horrendous footage of men being shot dead by a helicopter in Iraq. Do we repeat the violence in showing this? Should we see this and, more importantly, what types of ethical burdens does knowing about violations in long held assumptions about jus in bello impose upon us?
Knowledge as Freedom
Julian Assange claims that (to paraphrase him) what annoys him is that people who abuse their power and use this power to abuse innocents. Does this make knowledge the currency of political freedom?
Anyway... Back to the conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment