In last week’s challenge, it appeared that many, if not all, of you believed that the arguments I made were ones that I personally subscribe to. Given my previous posts on that particular topic, I must say I was very surprised. But this is an excellent thing. When commenting in these threads, one’s personal views, and previous arguments, are irrelevant; in fact, the commenters themselves are irrelevant. We want new angles, and clever ideas (a shout-out to Mr Soon for his contribution: “I’ll see your Kant, and raise you a Batman�). You can find inspiration anywhere. We want to discover the truth, to question all that we originally thought obvious.
The argument is what matters – that is all.
Today, you have returned to the first world; you are a journalist for a major metropolitan newspaper. You have been given a story of corruption on a grand scale; the level of secrecy is such that there has been not a hint of wrongdoing – until now.
There’s a promise of more information, more documents; you’ll get front-page stories, probably a Walkley.
Of course, your whistleblower demands you keep their identity secret. The scandal involves a small, secretive and powerful group – the whistleblower could only have this information due to personal involvement.
But in order for justice do be done – whatever that is – the police and DPP need you to reveal your source. They fear that without your source, those involved in the scandal may go unpunished.
To whom do you owe a duty? When, if ever, is it right to break a promise? What do you do?
Shoot the hostage.
Write a script and shop it to Jimmy McGovern or this guy. The Brits are really good at this sort of stuff.
Top stuff, Keanu. Glad I wasn’t the only one thinking that!
Can’t wait to see how Observa makes this one into an Islamic issue.
I’d say that as soon as someone’s degree of wrongdoing outweighs yours for breaking the promise, break that promise and expose them. Just make sure you get all the information you can out of them first. This is assuming they are knowingly complicit in that wrongdoing, of course, and hoping to get away with it by blowing the whistle. The anonymity we deserve is a function of our behaviour, not something to be granted willy-nilly.
If however they blew the whistle in good faith, as soon as they were aware of the corruption, then they *should* have nothing to fear from exposure. But we all know different, don’t we? That would be a hard one.
Well, speaking as a temporary Hobbesian, David, I’ll remind you that the basis of civil society is that people keep their covenants. There’s a covenant between reporter and source – the source providing insider information in return for anonimity.
Blow your source’s cover and you not only expose them to the criminal justice system, but you also act in a way that is inconsistent with the fundamental basis of civil society (as represented by the justice system). And so Kant (categorical imperative No 1) comes into play.
Back when I’ve had a little more time to think that little mess over.
Speaking of Leinad’s Brits, now if it was a sex scandal like they had there long ago, it’s easy, the principle to apply or keep in mind:
(there’s no smoke without a fire.)
(And in breaking Russian spy Ivanov’s confidences, one would have promised him 100 roubles a month in perpetuity compensation and a free guided tour of all the knocking shops in Soho after testifying for good character in his asylum application.)
I’m sure Nabs can think of a better variation on this theme!
This is difficult. I take it there is no escape hatch i.e. can my source be guaranteed immunity in exchange for being known to the police? Whistleblowers should be rewarded for whistleblowing – of course it would be ideal if they weren’t involved in illicit activities to begin with but if these are going to happe anyway then you want to give incentives to people to weasel on their partners. When you give away a source you are not only doing so on behalf of yourself but for all journalists – in the period t 1 people will be less inclined to blow the whistle to other journalists.
So the question is – does the benefit of exposing one’s source in period t and thereby catching and imprisoning corruption in period t worth the foregone opportunities for catching and imprisoning wrongdoers from period t 1 onwards assuming that incentives to whistleblow are now reduced by your actions setting a precedent?
In the real world, you’d expect the police would offer leniency to whistleblowers so the tradeoff may not in fact be as stark as this.
Most jurisdictions deny any legal protection to whistleblowers whose first avenue of complaint is the media, so naming the source is bound to land him/her in big trouble. I wouldn’t reveal my source — at least until they were about to throw my virgin ass in prison.
Well Jason, here I agree with you (I think). The whistleblower blew his whistle presumably because his conscience bade them to. There’s not really any other reason to blow the whistle, especially in this case where the whistle blower is also guilty. If he were not guilty of involvement in the corruption, then revenge could be a motivation for dobbing ‘em all in. But in this case the whistle blower is guilt-plagued and in something of a double bind. But he has spilled the beans to a journalist, made his bed and so he must lie in it. Afterall, a journalist’s job is to report what she hears truthfully. (Well that’s the theory). The journalist need only report the news not act as prosecutor, but she could alert the cops beforehand and blow the whistle on the whistleblower and suggest the hope that the police show some sense and leniency.
Australians hate dobbers, but it is far more hateful to turn a blind eye to corruption and cruelty.
OK then, thanks for the clarification, andy.
I’m gonna take a stand now and not reveal my source, no matter what.
Having some more additional information on illicit activities is better than not having anymore. Those prepared to whistleblow to the authorities are those who’ve already thought things through and would come out. Their incentives won’t change much regardless of whether or not I reveal my source as a journalist.
Those who go the intermediate step of only revealing their source to a journalist but not the authorities are the marginal cases who would be scared away if journalists revealed their sources. It’s better for law enforcement that they know there *is* some illicit activity going on somewhere in particular than not at all. Sometimes this information is sufficient for police to pick up on clues and make an arrest without needing to know the source and sometimes not. When it is, all well and good. When it isn’t, too bad, but the law enforcement situation is no worse off than if the source hadn’t appeared in the first place and at least the public gets *some* benefit in terms of increased information that something is going on.
So my lips are sealed as a journalist and as a citizen trying to maximise welfare by maximsing information and arrests.
Ok, Gummo Ice-pick-head. I understand the role of keeping to agreements made in good faith. Really really important.
But depending on the nature of the corruption, this whistleblower might have broken many many covenants, on a scale much larger than a personal agreement. Do they still deserve the protection of my word when I discover that they’ve covered up a child sex ring, or ripped off credulous oldsters for their savings.
I understand that I am personally cheapened by reneging (sp?) on my word. Perhaps I’m prepared to ‘take one for the team’ though.
No offence intended by the cheap-shot name, BTW.
Interesting situation we got here.
In the first challenge I was advocating making an exception to a rule on utilitarian grounds. Here I’m advocating sticking to a rule (never reveal your sources) on utilitarian grounds (it would on balance probably lead to less whistleblowing in future and it is not necessarily always the case that police need to know your sources to crack a case which came to light only because of that source in the first place). Meanwhile Ice-pick head is advocating sticking to a rule on grounds of it being a rule and F David Bower is advocating breaching the rule on the basis that we should punish wrongdoers because they are wrongdoers.
These differences ultimately go back to what we think punishment is for. I believe that punishment is to deter though emotionally we also like to punish wrongdoers because we feel they deserve it. I am therefore willing to let a wrongdoer get away with less punishment if it yields more succesful deterrence in the long run (because there is more whistleblowing).
Open the fridge door, take the elephant out, put the moral high ground in, close the door.
That’s all well and good, Kim, but how do we get the ice-pick out of Trotsky’s skull?
There is no story for the journalist if she can’t name names and she must be able to substantiate her claims or face jail herself for witholding information. If she can’t name her source then she has no story that can be believed or that is even very interesting.
A bona fide whistleblower as opposed to a ‘grass’ should do both simultaneously– go public and, if they themselves are involved in the corruption, hand themselves in. (Yeah right, in Gummo’s ‘civil’ society ‘as if’)
‘There is no story for the journalist if she can’t name names ”
Link, I think you’re trying to define the problem away. And what about Watergate?
Well, so much for my crude attempt to lever this comment thread into a discussion of social contract theory, focussing on the specific conflict between obligations I’ve incurred to my source – by agreeing to protect his identity in exchange for information which might lead me to the glory of a Walkley Award and possible a future as a respected opinion writer like Piers Akkerman or Andrew Bolt – and my putative obligations to the body politic as represented by the AFP and the rest of the criminal justice system.
Might as well fall back to the prudential case, based on rational self-interest – what are my long-term prospects, as a journalist, if I get a reputation for ratting out my sources to the Feds?
As for Jason’s utilitarian case, that’s not really a utilitarian case at all – Jason’s really arguing that it’s better for society in the long run that I protect my source, to protect the practice of whistle-blowing. But in the short-term, there are any number of factors I can throw in to make a utilitarian case for rating out the source – such as the widespread Schadenfreude that will result from the prosecution of the conspirators and the personal benefits that might accrue to me from establishing good relations with the AFP – they might be prepared to leak the odd hint of more upcoming prosecutions in future. As long, perhaps, as I promise to enter into an appropriate mutual backscratching arrangement.
Ice-Pick Head
“As for Jason’s utilitarian case, that’s not really a utilitarian case at all – Jason’s really arguing that it’s better for society in the long run that I protect my source, to protect the practice of whistle-blowing. But in the short-term, there are any number of factors I can throw in to make a utilitarian case for rating out the source ”
Gummo, you’re flat out wrong. Since this is an *ethical* connundrum, I was talking about what I would do as an ethical person to maximise the utility of society – fundamentally this is how I view ethics – through a consequentialist lens. If Anna was instead asking ‘what should you do to make yourself better off’ then your answer would be more pertinent but even then contestable – I would argue that I would get more scoops in future by not ratting out my source.
Oops! My Bad. Sorry Jason.
“If Anna was instead asking ‘what should you do to make yourself better off’…”
I might have been asking that – Comrade Trotsky might argue that the only duty he owes is to himself, and make his choice based on that duty.
Time to put aside my own biases and make a principled case for turning the source over to the Feds.
I’ll start with that Hobbesian stuff, because it points in the right general direction. Hobbes position on why you should obey the law, even if you disagree with it is summarised by AJ Ayer as “You should obey the law because you promised to.” Social Contract theory 101 – a common theme in all social contract theory is the premise that, in order to form a society and keep it running, we have to surrender unfettered freedom of action and submit ourselves to a rule of law. Which, of course, should be determined by our democratically elected representatives, but this is by no means a given.
In this situation, it’s hinted that my source is personally involved in the conspiracy, so by pledging my silence on his/her identity in exchange for a good story, I’ve made myself at least an accessory to that conspiracy. So there’s some doubt over whether whistleblower protection laws will protect me and my source. If they don’t, then I could face criminal prosecution regardless of whether I out my source to the AFP – although maybe I’d get leniency if I ratted the source out. And my source might also get leniency if she ratted her co-conspirators out.
SC 101 informs me that my obligation – however incurred – to obey the law is part of the glue that bindeth society together; if I insist on protecting my source, then woe betide me – and rightly so. (How is this situation any different, vis-a-vis law breaking, from buying stolen property and refusing to divulge the identity of the seller once nicked? (The Judge Dredd view of the situation.))
From a utilitarian or consequentialist point of view, I’d have to weigh the benefits and costs to society of protecting my source and publishing the story. Benefits – corruption gets exposed, and future whistle blowers know they have a channel – through me and me media mates – they can use to expose corruption. Costs – handling the matter in this way erodes confidence in the ability of the “proper authorities” to investigate and deal with high level corruption, creating cynicism about the political process. Hand the matter over to the AFP and you discourage future whistleblowers from contacting the media (a cost) but you raise confidence in the “proper authorities” (benefit). I don’t think this paragraph got me too far; either course of action becomes justifiable on a consequentialist view, depending on your valuations of the costs and benefits.
Coming back to that stolen property analogy – in that case there’s a very obvious infringement of right. If I buy an X-Box out of a car boot, I’ve got good reason to think it’s stolen and by buying it I’m taking part in violation of some third party’s property rights. Is there an infringement of right in this conspiracy case? Not so obviously against an individual but, by a bit of Procrustean stretching or cutting, you could impute an infringement of everyone’s right to fair and equal treatment before the law and by protecting your source you are involving yourself in that infringement.
My personal inclination is still to protect the source and become a culture hero – but there are cogent arguments on the side of revealing all to the Feds and the DPP. As Jason says, it’s interesting how, on different grounds, everyone’s got to the conclusion that we should protect the source – but what if we’re all wrong?
And following up on Anna’s comment – I was playing around with the idea of making the Randroid case for protecting the source last night. Toss in a couple of mentions of the “Looter State” and my last comment would probably do it. But then, as a Randroid, should I publish the story at all?
Hey you bums, the police are more corrupt than anyone. Your entire society is corrupt. That’s what makes all your leftist-rightist twaddle so irrelevant.
You live in fairyland.
Take no notice.
“Well pardon us RH, we are doing that anyway.”
“You dork!”
“either course of action becomes justifiable on a consequentialist view, depending on your valuations of the costs and benefits.”
Well yes, Gummo. That’s the problem with utilitarian consequentialism. Or consequential utilitarianism. It’s an unavoidably natural and attractive way to argue for this or that course of action, but ultimately it still rests on values which themselves need to be argued for, and extrapolations which may or may not play out.
Well, it’s tough, Bower but that’s life. The point of consequentialism is to assess the consequences and work out what approach best leads to an increase in total well-being. What use is an Ethics that is totally divorced from considerations of well-being? None whatsoever. We evolved our ethics to meet human needs and wants, it wasn’t handed down to us from God.
There is no corruption as the “source of the leak” doesn’t pass the ’smell test’ – what does the source get out of it?