In the system of practical philosophy, ethics occupies a special place. It specifies the ethics and inspires a well-known formula of the ancient philosopher Protagoras that man is the measure of all things, justifying the idea of man as the highest value and self-worth, the sense of life and how to achieve happiness. Ethics calls to treat a man as the aim and never treat man merely as a means. Ethics is a philosophy of morals, values, and ethos. The concept of morality is often limited to the level of elementary culture of communication, so the meaning and the mystery of the moral life and moral issues remain unsolved. The consequence of this morality is its non-recognition. Ordinary level of perception captures only taboo (forbidden) side of morality, creating a skeptical and nihilistic attitude towards it, and as a result, it leads to the activity and behavioral lack of implementing moral principles (Merrill, 2011).
Surveillance is defined by many scholarly sources as close watching or even spying on someone or something. Domestic surveillance means close watch kept over National Security Agencies within own country aiming at providing their citizens with protection from terrorist attacks, controlling and defeating any kind of terrorist activity (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013). Judging from the national security perspective, domestic surveillance is regarded as positive and necessary phenomenon as it presupposes human protection and aims at saving human lives. If considering domestic surveillance from the point of view of ethical philosophy, it may be determined as an ethical issue as the noble aim to save human life presupposes interfering with human privacy, spying on a person, controlling and collecting any kind of information about him/her (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013). With this regard, there arouses a question whether the behavior of Security Agencies is ethically correct and socially approved.
The notion of domestic surveillance can be considered from different perspectives. With this regard, ethical philosophy provides numerous ethical theories that help to determine the level of morality of the domestic surveillance phenomenon. In order to realize it, one should be aware of at least some of the ethical theories. For instance, humanistic and authoritarian ethics, and individual and social ethics. These two theories presuppose the contrast between different attitudes, values and moral principles in ethical behavior of humanity.
The scientists argue that the knowledge about human nature does not lead to relativism, which proves the relativity of value judgments and ethical norms, but rather to the conclusion that the source of ethical behavior is human nature itself. In this case, according to Fromm, humanists believed that understanding of human nature, values and norms of human life are interrelated. Fromm believed that their position on the relativistic values had a negative impact both on the development of ethical theory, and on the progress of psychology itself. He became convinced that only our mind and our value judgments determine our actions. On the contrary, he believed that one should be surprised by the opposite phenomenon: the power of the human pursuit of happiness, health, and aspirations are given by nature (Fromm, 1947).
All the mentioned points form the basis of humanistic ethics and distinguish it from the authoritarian ethics, the morality of which is concentrated mainly on external authority. If humanistic ethics man is the creator of the rules and their contractor, in authoritarian ethics an external authority determines human benefits, and it also establishes the laws and norms of human behavior (Fromm, 1947).
The differential feature between humanistic and authoritarian ethics is clear. The main issue is the approval authority of the government (social or spiritual), whose command should be strictly adhered to and that the main virtue announces obedience and disobedience. This system is not based on reason and knowledge, but it presupposes standards and the subjective feeling of weakness and dependency (Fromm, 1947).
In contrast, the humanistic ethics affirms the intrinsic value of the human being. Only man is the measure of all things and only man may determine the criteria of virtue and sin. This, of course, does not mean that the human goal can be achieved in the conditions of isolation from the outside world (Fromm, 1947). Humanistic ethics sees one of the characteristics of human nature as the one that people can find themselves and their happiness only in kinship and solidarity with others. But, it also defends the human right for freedom from any kind of dictatorship.
Erich Fromm paid particular attention to identifying and analyzing the nature and type of human character, how it differs from temperament, talent and other constitutionally defined technical properties of the person. In terms of Fromm, this distinction is crucial, since the mixing of the ethics of temperament and character is very harmful. Temperament is the only way to react, it remains unchangeable. Character is formed by personal experiences, social environment and changes in the process of assimilation and socialization. While differences in temperament have no ethical significance, the differences in the nature form a serious ethical problem.
In his investigation, Fromm discovered the fundamental principles of the nature of different types of human relations with the world (external and internal). In this regard, he singled out two main types of character, different in their structure, which is based on a particular relationship to the world, and which Fromm called orientation: character with unproductive orientation and the nature of productive orientation. Human nature of the first type is receptive, exploitative, acquisitive and market oriented. A person does not believe in what he/she can get from the outside world and, therefore, bases his/her security on greed and economy. His/her greed extends to material things, money, and thoughts and feelings that he/she desires to get, without giving anything in return. The outside world is a threat for his/her safety, he/she is sterile and incapable of productive thinking. Fundamentally different from this type is the human nature of the second type. It possesses such qualities as responsibility, modesty, accommodating, respectful, gentle, optimistic attitude to other people (Fromm, 1947).
Knowledge of the nature of these types is particularly important for the activities related to complex issues of decision-making, relationships between managers and their subordinates, managerial communication and behavior. No less important is the knowledge of the influence of social cultural environment on the formation of a certain type of character. This investigation takes a special place in Fromm’s analysis of the nature types. This is one of the main merits of Fromm. According to him, the nature of the normal, mature and healthy personality is the goal of human development and, simultaneously, the idea of the humanistic ethics. Thus, under it Fromm understood not merely the human activity and the ability to produce something, to use strength to realize opportunities inherent in it. This is a special way of becoming related to the world. Only the power of love can break down the walls between people. Care and responsibility allow people to say that love is an activity, not simply a passion or affect. At the same time, without respect and love, the humankind degenerates into domination and possessiveness.
Judging from this theory, there arouse several questions concerning the analysis of domestic surveillance from the ethical perspective. What is the ethical issue? Taking into account the basic principles of humanism theory that human is the highest value, the main ethical issue consists in the idea that National Security Agencies appear to be the authoritative power that interferes with its activity in human privacy violating human rights and values. This interference is irrelevant judging from the humanism philosophy. Though, National Security Agencies, as the authoritative power, aim at protecting people through interfering with their privacy, collecting and analyzing information about them, they violate the main humanism principles, and here arouses the main disputing issue. Where are the breaches of ethical behavior? The breaches appear when people become the victims of controlling their chats, email, phone conversations and other personal information, although these are the conditions that presuppose safety. How this very theory may help people think over ethical behavior? This theory consists in valuing the human beings, their rights, interests and convictions. Nowadays world is extremely cruel, people bring harm others, do not care about rights and values of others. That is why, humanism is quite important now, as it teaches people to appreciate each other, and the implementation of this theory can bring balance and safety in the society.
Another important theory is based on the concepts of individual and social ethics. This theory is socially oriented and reveals the essence of social interrelations and interconnections. Individual ethics concerns only separate individuals. In contrast, public, or social ethics, is related to the group, the community as something extraneous, incidental in relation to the nature of man.
One should remember that morality serves both as a characteristic of the individual, which is the bearer of moral consciousness, the only subject of moral decisions and actions, and as a special form of social consciousness, spiritual and practical sphere of life of the community. Social ethics is the ethics of public life, the teaching of ethical relations and responsibilities that determines the most humane life in society. In contrast to individual ethics, it is focused on the ethical significance in the life of society where social institutions control how the overall direction and guidance to social development, and the nature of morality itself determine the individual's behavior. From this perspective, social ethics can be described as the institutional ethics and should be considered as the field of legal and institutional relations (Charlotte, 1981).
In nowadays world the value of social ethics is increasing. According to most contemporary scholars, this is due to the peculiarities of modern social development, which is characterized by anonymity and desecration of social relations, pluralism of social life, disintegration of traditional social structures (family, class, ethnic isolation, economic monopoly and state autonomy). Values and norms of social ethics acquire particular importance in this context and ensure social and cultural stability of the society. It means that the society desires to accomplish such fundamental goals as freedom, justice and the public good. Well behaved, neat institutions facilitate the rights of people for moral behavior. Built on the principles of hierarchy, separation of powers, transparency and accountability to society, social institutions can provide the society with successful achievement of ethical goals (Charlotte, 1981).
In order to more clearly present the dialectic of individual and social ethics in the modern society, one should consider the main points of political ethics, which is an integral part of social ethics. The importance of government in social sphere of life allows define the notion of political ethics. Political ethics must be the ethics of political institutions, and ethics of political virtues. This is because, on the one hand, the policy cannot remove the moral dimension, and on the other hand, politics has its own institutional dimension. As social ethics, political ethics is responsible for the correctness of laws, procedures, activity of institutions. Political ethics is a kind of professional ethics, consisting of moral principles and rules governing the behavior of people in politics, defining political decisions and actions.
Great attention is paid to the analysis of political virtues, the development of which is the main merit of traditional ethics. In his study, he gives a detailed description of such virtues as, formulated, as we know, by Plato. For politicians, such virtues as rationality, justice, courage, temperance are not just the decision-making machinery, but they are the prior things in the sphere of interaction and relationship between people and their interests. The value of the individual virtues increases in a democratic society, in terms of electoral politics (Charlotte, 1981).
The role and importance of political institutions, the justification of its positive regulatory functions is assigned as a central place in political ethics, along with the ethics of political goals and values, political conflicts, the ethics of political actions, and others. The ethical importance of institutions is explained by many factors. One of them is the role of intermediary institutions that facilitate consensus among diverse citizens' interests and the public good. They provide the community with the measure of stability of social life, and citizens with orientation in difficult situations. As the regulatory framework, political institutions ensure the reliability of expectations and a certain regularity in the behavior of political actors. While institutions cannot assume responsibility for the implementation of individual morality, they can maintain it and compensate for the lack of morality in society. Well-organized social and public institutions are able to rule out abuse, maintain and strengthen the citizens in solving their own forces. The freedom-loving institutions reveal the moral order of society, reflected in ethical program of the state.
The peculiarity of the institutions is their anonymous, impersonal nature, which contributes to the liberation of the moral requirements of the individual. The institutional order of the modern society, therefore, brings the public consciousness to the understanding of the need for social compromise between society and the individual, based on mutual rights and obligations, and the state itself does not have priority over a person.
This theory reflects the relations between community and social institutions aiming at preserving ethical behavior and morality within the society. In applying this theory to the notion of domestic surveillance, the main issue concerns the relations between the community and National Security Agencies. According to this theory, political institutions control interests and values of the society. That is why, National Security Agencies are responsible for the safety of the community they protect, and as a result, they accomplish a noble goal in providing people with security. At first glance, this theory perfectly reveals the relations between people and political institutions. But, the political ethics violates the basic principles of the humanism ethics interfering with its overall control in human privacy. Here is the breach that reveals the contradiction between two ethics, the humanist and the politic one. This theory helps people to cooperate in the community for the sake of gaining the common good. It also allows people to cooperate with social and political institutions that aim at regulating their ethical behavior and achieving common goals.
Every country takes care about its citizens and is responsible for their security and protection. With this regard, the governments use different means of controlling their national community for the sake of preserving their safety.
Two years ago, Edward Snowden secretly sent National Security Agency documents of the United States to the journalists of the newspaper The Guardian, the co-worker of which he had once been. The first published article that told about the incredible surveillance of the National Security Agencies over the world leading countries that produced the effect of an explosion of a nuclear bomb. Michael Morell states that Snowden disclosed top-secret information that helped the US adversaries and was the most serious failure of the intelligence services of the United States for the whole history. According to Morell, Edward Snowden destroyed all previous efforts made by the States to prevent terrorist threats; Snowden’s disclosure of information has caused irreparable harm to the US national security. Morell considers that the revelations made by Snowden subjected Americans to great risk, because the terrorists get to know almost everything from the disclosed state secrets, and will be more careful in their activity. According to Morrell, the greatest damage causes the information about the so-called black book, the budget of the security services. Morell adds that details about for what American intelligence agencies spent money reveals the priorities of their work and the potential weak sides which foreign spies can take advantage of (Friedersdorf, 2015).
So, domestic surveillance is considered to be an important part of modern governing systems, that allows security agencies reach the goals established by the ruling government in the country. The effective functioning of social and political institutions depends largely on the well-organized control, as it aims not only at identifying, collecting and controlling private information, but also at preventing people from harmful impact of the terrorist activity on human lives.
References
Charlotte, P., (1981). Personal and Social Ethics In An Interdependent World. Web. 01 Jul. 2016. Retrieved from:
http://carljwestman.blogspot.com/2009/08/personal-and-social-ethics-in.html
Council on Foreign Relations, (2013). U.S. Domestic Surveillance. Web. 01 Jul. 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/us-domestic-surveillance/p9763
Friedersdorf, C., (2015). The Last Defenders of the NSA. Web. 01 Jul. 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-last-defenders-for-the-phone-dragnet/393581/
Fromm, E., (1947). Humanistic Ethics. Web. 01 Jul. 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.panarchy.org/fromm/ethics.html
Merrill, W. B., (2011). What is Ethical Behavior? Web. 01 Jul. 2016. Retrieved from:
https://bradwmerrill.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/what-is-ethical-behavior/
