Response on The Banality of Systemic Evil

Herbert Spencer, the “bad boy” evolutionist, described society as a biological organism- each feature of society whether it be law, family, or the National Security Agency, functions together to meet social needs. Similar to the human body, the institutions we have created within our society are equally as important for their individual purpose, as well as to allow the rest of society to function. Spencer would have attributed the stability of a developed society, such as America to the cohesion and interdependence of specialized groups focusing on very specific tasks. That being said, he is also was a denouncer of public services, considering socialism form of slavery.

            Peter Ludlow,a philosophy professor from Northwestern University poses an interesting question sparked by the recent leaks on the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden: “Has the younger generation lost its moral compass?”

            Snowden, having recently released information about the National Security Agency censoring private phone calls and internet usage, has been called a hero and a traitor. Ludlow explores the events of a few whistleblowers, but I will focus on Snowden’s.  The article quotes David Brooks, an Op-Ed contributor in the New York Times. “For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures.” This leads me to question; to what extent are we to blindly allow our institutions to lead us? Of course trust is a key component in a functioning team, but is it our right to know what is happening in our society, or is it better for our well-being to turn a blind eye to the matters which only affect us once we learn of their existence? It only seems fair that once the public has had their eyes opened to the invasion of privacy, it is their right to retract some trust that we put into the agencies that operate within the United Stated.  But if these institutions were installed for the well-being of national security and the majority of American citizens, then perhaps it is in our best interest to cease the questioning and return to our lives previously unaffected by this matter. After all, ignorance is bliss, right?

            I think that Spencer would see this invasion of privacy as ultimate slavery. I mean, if organized social institutions are a form of slavery, then what’s worse than a secret social institution that lurks around right under our noses? Spencer said, “No one can be perfectly free till all are free.” The problem here is that it may just be impossible to provide freedom for everyone. In the “Land of the Free” we have every law, amendment, and moral code in place to restore freedom for US citizens, yet the way that we do this is by infringing on private conversations. Of course the decision makers of the NSA have good intentions and it is very possible that terrorist attacks have been dodged due to the implementation of these privacy invasions. The dilemma lies in which are more important: respecting privacy or protecting lives of US citizens. When things are going swell, I would surely say that would prefer my conversations to remain private as I expect them to, but the day after a terrorist attack, I would definitely prefer knowing the US government is taking necessary measures and precautions to restore my safety.

            This brings me back to Brooks’ quote about trust. When we elect officials, we are essentially electing representatives to make decisions for us so that we can spend our time studying, or working, or farming, etc. We do not request, nor would I want to be required to know every decision that is made in Washington D.C. With this, I would have to support the notion that in many cases, ignorance is bliss. While the infringement of privacy is a huge plummet to the notion of US freedom, I recognize the fact that until I knew what the NSA was doing I was not personally affected of offended. Even still, I agree with Ludlow that what Snowden did was liberating. I think that while morality, just like most things that we claim to believe are innate, are culturally relative, it is hard to place a stamp of ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ on Snowden’s actions. Through my exploration of the matter, and over the course of writing this, I decided to answer Ludlow’s question which I posed at the beginning of this post. I think that the younger generation has not in fact lost its moral compass, but that, as culture changes, qualifications for morality change with it. There is a fine line to walk with whistleblowing or tattle-tailing, and it always seems to result in a feeling of anger or distrust where there once was just ignorance of the situation. In Spencer’s defense, socialism brings about it a sense of “ignorance” but in the case of the US, it has boded well in many respects.