The Relationship between Science and Ethics - Essay Example

Philosophy final paper Living in society has always regarded as one of the irreplaceable prerequisites for the development of the inner potential of a human. However, it would not be a mistake to point out that the social environment may also feature some negative aspects. One of them is the surveillance that the government performs over its citizens. On the one hand, it is generally thought to be performed by the state for the sake of the people and is largely regarded as a means of protection. On the other hand, there is a part of population who thinks that surveillance invades privacy of the people. This paper will utilize the views of two widely known philosophers on the nature of government as well as the role it plays in lives of the people and project these ideas on the issue of surveillance. The first philosopher whose views will be analyzed and applied to the issue in question is Thomas Hobbes. One of the main ideas that he argues focuses on the fact that when people agreed to form the society, they also agreed to lose a certain part of their freedom (Hirschmann 61). Indeed, this is a rather important claim that has significant implications for examination of the issue in question. Thus, continuing this idea, one might point out that the notion of privacy in the social environment is ephemeral since from the very beginning people knew that they had to sacrifice it. In other words, if the government had the right to invade our privacy from the dawn of its creation, surveillance is nothing but a logical development of its powers. Indeed, at first when the society did not have technical opportunities to perform effective surveillance, it had to rely on various spies; however, at the present moment as science has developed this practice has become less visible and more precise. Another point that stands in the works of Thomas Hobbes is the primary goal of the government which is thought to be focused on protection of the people from any kind of aggression, should it originate from inside or from outside (Tidwell 48). Indeed, the society should not be considered to some kind of a natural organization: it is a special body that has a clear purpose. This means that the actions that are performed within this framework should be valued based on their effectiveness to reach the original goal. That is why from this perspective surveillance may be justified as it is an effective tool to identify people who willing to commit actions that would undermine the fundamentals of the society. What is really important is that nowadays the government can really prevent a considerable number of illegal actions with the help of surveillance. It would not even be an exaggeration to suggest that these devices have introduced many changes into the criminal culture itself. Moreover, Thomas Hobbes argues that all the power that circulates within the society should be accumulated in the hands of the sovereign and his decisions should not be disputed (Baumgold 56). There is no doubt that from this kind of perspective, the issue of surveillance is seen is a justifiable action that performed by the highest governing authority for the good of the people. This also means that the population is not able to oppose this phenomenon as it is the manifestation of power that once was granted to the state and which defines its nature. In other words, it is difficult to restrict the society to introduce certain changes, especially when it operates within the predetermined framework. There no doubt in the fact that the government has legitimized its invasion into privacy of the citizens or will no longer protect the basic rights of the people; what really happens is that it tries to achieve its original goal with the help of new tool that were not known at the time of the creation of the Constitution. Finally, considering the philosophical legacy of Thomas Hobbes, one should point out that one of the most essential elements of it is the idea that the nature of people who comprise the society is an evil one; therefore, the latter should do its best in order to make sure that people are well protected from themselves (Sullivan 83). In spite of the fact that this might sound rather surprising, it surely explains the need for surveillance. Thus, according to this view, it is nature of the people to behave aggressively, so surveillance should be considered to be a logical tool that will minimize the destructive impact that people are able to have on the society. It would not be an exaggeration to assume that in the times of Thomas Hobbes there were some forms of surveillance as well, but due to lack of technological developed they were extremely primitive, so the philosopher did not pay a lot of attention to this particular social issue. Nevertheless, it is obvious what kind of position he would have adopted in case he had been able to participate in the contemporary discussion. Indeed, if he had had at his disposal all the knowledge that there is about the world, including technological advancements that were unthinkable in his times, he might have introduced certain changes into his theory and developed it further. The ideas that were discussed in the above paragraphs feature fine logic and justify surveillance. Nevertheless there is a different point of view on the issue in question that was developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. To begin with, one should note that unlike Hobbes he thought that the emergence of the society was not associated with giving up any freedom, but rather should be viewed as an act of will (MacIver 227). Some might point out that there is no significant difference between these two points of view; however, there are some implications that are particularly important when it comes to analyzing the issue of surveillance. Thus, it is clear that the public considers it to be invasion into its privacy, so, according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the people are able to put and end to it as they are in charge of the very creation of the social environment. As a result, this philosopher might suggest that the people have the highest power over any institute that exists in the society. As a result, if the practice of surveillance causes a considerable amount of disturbance, the population might organize its will in the legitimate way and make a change in the social environment. Indeed, the idea according to which people are able to enjoy the highest power in the society does not allow them using it chaotically. In other words, one of the fundamentals of the social environment is harmony between different forces that create it, so of there is a need to change it should also be harmonized with the rest of society. What is even more important is that one of the most essential ideas that were advocated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is that the ultimate goal of the society is to restore the harmony that existed between people (Hancock 219). In other words, any transformation of the social environment that does contribute to the harmonization of the relationships between people should be rejected as it will be a big obstacle on the way of development of it. Judging from the discussion of the role of surveillance in the modern society, one might come to a conclusion that it mostly generates disharmony. So, from the point of view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the government should abandon this path. If one considers the discussion about the performance of surveillance over people that is currently going on in the society, one will be able to notice that it surely divides the community into two opposing groups. This means that this tool does not work properly as it mostly brings troubles for the population. There is no doubt that if the practice of surveillance is put to an end, there will be some people who might be dissatisfied with it. Nevertheless, in this case the government will remove an obstacle from the path of social development that blocked its evolution. That is why it is highly probable that when this problem is removed, the society might move further quite fast. All the above mentioned aspects result in one quite controversial idea, namely that the government should never forget about it role as a mere representative of the will of the people as the latter should be considered to be the only source of power (Cameron 97). As one can easily see, this holds an important implication for the discussion about the place of surveillance in the society. Thus, it is often pointed out that this phenomenon should be considered to be a natural part of the social evolution and it does not make sense to oppose it. It is understandable that from this point of view, the end of surveillance over the citizens is nothing but a matter of time as the people may use their power to eliminate it. There is one more point that should be taken into account when it comes to analyzing the way in which surveillance affect the society. Thus, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the nature of the human beings is good and the humanity should not be afraid to explore the depths of it (Ellingson 2). Moreover, various violent events might be explained by the fact that people stray away from their true nature. Keeping this in mind, one might more that surveillance may be regarded as a tool that distorts the originally benign human nature. That is why it is rather obvious that this practice should be banned as it only brings negative consequences for the people. Having performed a detailed review of the philosophical points of view on issue of surveillance, it would be logical to express the position of the author. Thus, the above mentioned practice that is performed by the society should be allowed. Indeed, In other words, the author holds the similar position that Thomas Hobbes does. This means that the current level of the involvement of the government into the affairs of the citizens in order to identify any threats that are hidden there should be carried out for the safety of the people. As a result, the controversy about NSA performing surveillance that was exposed by Edward Snowden should not be seen as a positive action, but one that undermines the safety of the people. There are several reasons why the author adheres to the above mentioned position. To begin with, it must be noted that people who have nothing to hide should not be worried about the surveillance that is performed by the government. In spite of the fact that certain governmental bodies will be able to view personal letters or monitor activity of a person in the internet, they will mostly be focused on some issues that are potentially dangerous. In other words, a person will be under close supervision in case one downloads an instruction who to create a bomb and not because one downloads a science fiction book. In other words, since the majority of the population does not commit any crimes and does not hold any terrible secrets from the government, it should not be concerned since the latter is looking for completely different people. In addition to that, one should point out that the coverage of surveillance is largely being overstated. Thus, there is no group of people who monitor activity of a particular person round the clock. Indeed, the algorithms that are being used by certain agencies are sensitive to certain words, actions or search engine inquires; so, if a person does uses a definite word that is connected to terrorism, downloads books that are being forbidden in the country or as searching for something illegal, one will appear on the “radars” of the government. This means that in case surfs the Internet for fun, he or she may rest assured that one’s privacy is safe. Moreover, at the present moment the Internet has become one of the most effective platforms for communication; so, not only ordinary people, but terroristic groups as well use it to coordinate their actions. As a result, the government is able to prevent terroristic acts by infiltrating such groups which will have an actual result. For example, it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that prior to committing a crime, terrorists communicate over phone or the Internet. Thus, if they are under supervision, the government will be able to arrest them and save numerous lives of the people. Indeed, many widely known terroristic acts could have been prevented if the government had broader powers in terms of surveillance. All this results into perceiving the above mentioned social practice as a viable mechanism that is able to restrain the innate aggression that can be found in every person. Indeed, it does not mean that every person is dangerous for the society. Nevertheless, if people understand that there is a possibility that they are being watched and every their actions, even in such virtual environment as the Internet can be traced easily, they will give a second thought to any action that they are willing to perform, knowing that it is able to have negative consequences. From a psychological point of view this restraint might be quite effective as people tend to behave better when they feel that they are under supervision. Finally, it would also be rather important to point out that the invasion into privacy that is cased by the surveillance is largely exaggerated. For example, the opponents of it argue that nowadays it is virtually impossible for a person to go off the radars of the government. However, it is not absolutely true. If one does not use modern means of communications which is absolutely realistic, one might rest assured that the privacy of all the conversations is maintained. In addition to that, there is a considerable number of software that allows a person to browse the Internet anonymously. All this results in the fact that if one puts some efforts into it, it may be quite easily to avoid being detected by the government. In the course of writing this paper, the author learned a lot about the relationship between science and Ethics. Thus, as it has been shown in the paragraphs above, the development of technology is able to bring both positive and negative consequences; however, it is the society which is responsible for the correct application of it. Indeed, various means of surveillance are largely viewed as some kind of an obstacle on the way of exercising right to privacy. Nevertheless, if the situation is viewed from a certain perspective, it becomes clear that science does not violate rules that were set by Ethics. In other words, in order to understand the relationship between the former and the latter, one should develop a broad look and the issue and do not treat it in one dimension. Works Cited Baumgold, Deborah. Hobbess Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. Print. Cameron, Maxwell A. Strong Constitutions: Social-cognitive Origins of the Separation of Powers. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. Print. Ellingson, Terry Jay. The Myth of the Noble Savage. Berkeley: U of California, 2001. Print. Hancock, Joseph. Fashion in Popular Culture: Literature, Media and Contemporary Studies. New York, NY: Intellect, 2013. Print. Hirschmann, Nancy J. Gender, Class, and Freedom in Modern Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2008. Print. MacIver, Robert M. Politics & Society. New York: Transaction, 2005. Print. Sullivan, Vickie B. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print. Tidwell, Alan. Conflict Resolved?: A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution. London: Pinter, 1998. Print. Read More