Did Snowden and Assange do the right thing? - A Brief View of the Three Values for Judging The Right and Wrong of Things

20211023 Snowden and Assange did the right thing? - A brief view of the three values (positions) for judging the right and wrong of things

For a person's words and deeds, or the value judgment of a certain thing: right and wrong judgment, good or bad judgment, right and wrong judgment, moral judgment, etc., in addition to the truth and falsehood to be clarified at the fact level, people can mainly observe from three angles or three positions. Because people, as the sum of socialized relations, have three main roles or belongings or positions in real life, because there are three values or positions, namely personal values (positions), employment values (positions), and national and national social values.

One is that the free individual is first and foremost an individual, his own. There is its inherent free will, and therefore it has its own personal value judgments. The personal values mentioned here refer to the intrinsic and self-belief value judgment system that the individual, as an independent subject with free will, cultivates and cultivates self-realization according to his own innate disposition or acquired learning. Such personal values may, but not necessarily, be associated with individualism, liberalism, collectivism, or anything else. Personal positions or values can also be called personal inner feelings, personal inner will, personal internal code, and personal inner adherence. This inner insistence may be related to individual interests, but more to the subjective cognition of the individual, which can have a broad mind beyond narrow interests, even humanism or cosmopolitanism, and judge the right and wrong of individuals, organizations, and even national and ethnic communities.

Individuals, in turn, are often organized. Most of an individual's life and work must be a member of one or more organizations. Individuals are also members of a group or organization through a contract or invisible contract, and of course the individual should have professional ethics, maintain the rules and interests of the group, and have the spirit of the contract. This gives rise to the values of the group or organization, or the values of employment, or the values of contract. For example, safeguarding the interests of the organization, abiding by organizational discipline, strictly observing organizational secrets, and abiding by various norms of the organization.

The third kind of value, the position or values of the national society (group), most people are born to belong to a certain national nation, in a certain society (group). A country, a nation, and a society certainly have their own interests, norms, and demands. Such as patriotism, love of society, love of the nation, etc. Of course, some people may distinguish the state, the people, and the nation from the government, political parties, or bureaucracy to understand the interests of the state, the nation, and the community. Intuitively, people tend to equate the state with the government, but sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between them.

In this way, a person's judgment of things has 3 positions or angles. In a harmonious and clear society, these three values or positions will not cause too many contradictions or differences, personal values, employment values, and national values can be recognized, maintained or accepted, and the three values can be taken into account in good condition, and may even be highly consistent and highly unified, and individuals do not need to struggle or struggle for value conflicts. This should be the norm for most people and things, and it is also a beautiful pursuit of people.

But sometimes, there will be contradictions between the three, even fierce conflicts of interest, then there will be trade-offs and struggles. In this case, it may be that the individual obeys the organization, obeys the national interest, and thus is resolved. It may also be the other way around, or each of the three will make concessions to balance and achieve a relatively balanced state that is acceptable to all parties.

Sometimes the contradictions intensify to the point where they cannot be balanced, and from the perspective of personal practice, it is possible to choose to act in accordance with their own personal values and personal positions, and to do things that negate the other two interests. In this case, then, how can we morally judge whether it is superior or inferior? Is the value of the individual necessarily lower than the value of the organization and the national interest? Not necessarily.

Typical examples such as Snowden's Prism Gate incident, Wiki's Assange incident, did these two people do it right? In terms of the roles of the employed groups, they violated the spirit of the contract and leaked the secrets of the institution; in terms of national interests, they were found to have violated the laws of the United States, violated the national interests of the United States (which they themselves did not consider to be), and were traitors. And those things that are done from their personal positions or values are noble, for the human rights and interests of the people, and for the sake of world fairness and justice. Do you think they are noble? Done right? If so, then in the fierce clash of these three values, you recognize and appreciate their personal values.

Saturday, October 23, 2021 at home