I do not KNOW whether Ed Snowden is a traitor or a hero. My thinking is that he is neither, but, that assessment is not based upon the Patriot Act or any other instrument of human-crafted legislation. I suspect that as a rational, thinking human being, Mr. Snowden must have fully considered and accepted the consequences of his actions. He may have agonized over his decision for a very long time-but, he knew full well that life as he once knew it would be forfeit. Apparently, he was ready to what he had to do to get his point across. Ergo, he is now in Russia (?)---or somewhere else, on the lam. It may always be arguable that the laws of any true democracy are duly conceived and enacted for the common good. We, as beneficiaries in democratic process, sanction that process by exerting our right to vote for the legislators who are its actual participants. And so, participatory democracy is a somewhat misleading phrase. We the voters are, more realistically, gamblers. We cast our ballots, with the sure and present hope that those we elect are best suited to ensure that our welfare is safeguarded. But it is all a leap of faith, or better, a roll of the dice. Because we are like the man who has TWO watches: he is never truly sure what time it is.

I do know that Ed Snowden is a hero.
I am actually puzzled and deeply disturbed by the attitude of supposed Kantians like Ken.  I am a Utilitarian but I took that oath.  Even as a Utilitarian I take that seriously.  I made a promise to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.  Every member of the armed services takes that oath, as well as so-called intelligence people.  Why is it so hard for Kantians to see that this matters, and matters deeply.
Ken, of course Ed had to do what he did.  Yes, it was a matter of moral duty.  He promised to defend the constitution and he did.  Everyone around him had the same obligation but only he lived up to it.  That shows a tremendous moral failure that no one in a position of responsibility seems to take their oath of office seriously.
Why do Kantians want to defer to a low level law as the relevant principle, when it is obvious to any neutral observer that what matters is the higher principle of one's oath?  Ken asked who is Ed to do this.  He is a human being who promised to do that sort of thing.  What really matters is why do Kantians not understand that a oath to defend the constitution is a powerful thing, a deep obligation that almost no one lives up to.
The armed forces is filled with people who know things that mean what they are doing is illegal.  They swore an oath and multiple international agreements (does "Nuremburg" mean anything to you?) have affirmed that the individual has a moral and now legal obligation to stop any illegal activity they see even if it is their own officers who are the criminals.
Why can't Kantians take this oath seriously?

Wow!!! Mr. Snowden exhibited a profound intellect and deep understanding. I was not at all prepared to find myself admiring him. I am embarrased that my country forces him to live in exile.
 

I do not KNOW whether Ed Snowden is a traitor or a hero. My thinking is that he is neither, but, that assessment is not based upon the Patriot Act or any other instrument of human-crafted legislation.
 
dbk.

Doesn?t this look a little bit like a Robin Hood-esque story? I can?t look into this matter without thinking that Snowden is either being seen as the good guy who is considered a hero because he is dismantling the bad guy?s plan, or as the bad guy because he?s acting against the law. What is lacking is digging further into the question of ?does this law have any meaning when the other side ? the NSA - is also acting wrongfully?? To me, it?s either ?all of this ?both the NSA and Snowden?s actions - is very bad? or Snowden?s work is legitimate. But to argue that his activity was unlawful and not mention the context of the unlawfulness, the fact that clearly the other side?s actions were unconstitutional, does seem a bit odd.
Snowden is not like a ?normal? criminal in the sense that what he did was so that the population could know of practices that they might deem wrongful. So can the law, the way it is, apply to him? In fact, can law as an argument even be used here when there is clearly no regard for law (or privacy) on the other side of the issue? Shouldn?t the philosophical question regarding whistleblowing be freed from arguments against the law or pro-law, say, ?he is wrong in what he did because he acted against the law?? Because the other side isn?t exactly following the law either. What exactly are we basing our argument pro- and against whistleblowing on? Shouldn?t these arguments be independent from considerations of law?
For philosophical consideration of the act of whistleblowing itself, I could entertain concerns like ?Snowden has taken my autonomy away from me by informing me of something I may not want to have been informed about.? Of course the other side also removes autonomy by keeping its practices secret, and so on. Then, one could argue: ?he decided for me; that is a paternalistic approach to the rest of the citizens and thus wrong, etc.? Or ?what he did is a decision like that of a nurse hiding from a patient who has a terminal illness that he has said illness because the nurse thinks it would be best for the patient not to know.The situations are similar in that both involve an external party deciding for a person what he or she should know.? And so the conversation could develop. But Snowden?s actions cannot be philosophically considered by a simple call to legality or lack thereof.
It?s also not about saying ?Snowden is a traitor/hero because he revealed x.? What does being a traitor/hero have to do with this matter? It seems like a quick judgment or at least a completely different question to me - what makes a hero, what makes a traitor -, one independent from whether he acted wrongfully or not.  

May we agree that several things have happened since July of 2015? Those events and circumstances could have gone differently-that's the reality of space, time and synchronicity. But, are we any better off, or are things worse? A large portion of the American public appears to be almost as pessimistic as I have been for the last year or so. Polls show younger folks are the most disillusioned and disappointed. Many who are experts in matters of history and demography say: it is mostly cyclical; all things pass and return on a recurring basis-you may count on that. I do not recall what finally happened with the Patriot Act, or if anything happened at all. I must say that I do not believe there is much ado right now about 'forming a more perfect union'. I remarked (in 2015)that a man who has one watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure. This is true, even if the man with the one watch has a faulty one. I have a watch that, when purchased, was a source of some pride-of-ownership-not a Rolex, mind you, or a Patek-but, a nice Citizen eco-drive. It has lain dormant in my dresser drawer for ten or fifteen years. I no longer have a need for it, nor the pride-of-ownership it once symbolized. I write philosophy and offer commentary on many ideas and notions that interest me. And, I try to understand those which, as a practical matter, do not.

Sometimes it all seems hopeless, yet, it continues to capture my interest. I suppose this is why I continue to educate myself. And live the best life I can muster...Keep on doing what you and PT do, professor. This is the only game in town.

Whistleblowing walks a tightrope between moral duty and potential chaos. While shedding light on government or corporate misconduct can serve democracy, the unilateral decision-making raises concerns of unchecked exposure. The dilemma intensifies amid warrantless surveillance, blurring the line between security and invasion of privacy. Edward Snowden's revelations spotlighted these complexities, challenging our perceptions of government actions. The impact of whistleblowing extends beyond policy shifts; EHRS affected the way healthcare is provided, unveiling systemic flaws. Achieving equilibrium demands nuanced solutions, not solitary decisions, ensuring transparency without jeopardizing stability. In a similar vein, navigating complex societal structures, like in Conquer the Middle Ages in Lords and Knights – Medieval MMO, requires balancing power dynamics for sustainable progress without disrupting the delicate equilibrium.