In the NYT and the subject comes up about Whistle Blowers---people who take great risks to bring important facts to light that will not be welcomed by the powerful.
The question to the interviewee after the back and forth was, "Back to the question of being a whistleblower yourself: What did you ultimately conclude?"
Answer: "It's easy to sit here on the couch with a coffee and say 'Yeah, I would blow the whistle, of course. I'd do the righteous thing.' I hope that I would have the courage to do that--but I'm not sure."
I expected him to say "do the *right* thing," not the righteous thing. That threw my mind into a bit of a spin.
Right versus Righteous. Isn't that the big Prize Fight we are all placing bets on or at least watching in the arena?
I checked the dictionary. Right seems to be more correct and righteous seems more aligned with that chameleon of a word, morality. They seem to be related, right and righteous, but now in my mind they are more in-laws than blood relatives.
The interviewee has English as a second language, so I would say that the substitution of righteous for right makes sense as an error rather than a statement. But a statement it makes. A powerful one for me.
Isn't that what is happening with powerful Religions doing the righteous thing rather than the right thing?
One person's moral is another person's sin. Complicated.
BTW. I just finished watching the series "The Righteous Gemstones," and let me tell you, they have this righteous thing down pat. Some forms of righteousness are more entertaining that others for sure.
I shan't actually respond to the philosophical mystery you propose, Right v. Righteous, because that's a kind of "...cada quien habla de la feria segun le fue en ella...' thing.
What I wonder about these Whistle Blower stories is whether the whistleblowers would have whistleblown if they knew they were soon going to participate in the benefits enjoyed by those who didn't want the whistle blown?
One man's heroism could be another man's petty vindictiveness.
The love of money... The hate of not sharing in it...
Or one could go with David Hume and the founders of the US Republic, who thought that you can never rely solely on a person's moral convictions. Accordingly, the latter designed a constitution with institutions whose interests conflicted. That is the essence of checks and balances. When one branch of government attempts to usurp the prerogatives of another, the self-perceived victim fights back.
As for the whistle blowers we see in DC today, I don't think it likely that any of them--including the voluntary testifiers on Capital Hill--will see their careers in diplomacy and security enhanced by what is now happening.
Edward Snowden Chelsea Manning Julian Assange John Kiriakou Thomas Drake Samuel Provance Bill Binney Etc.
Ya…boy are these scammers just full of resentment and envy, you bet; they were on their way to riches, but then...!!! Self-serving bastards...
Wait…oooooooohhhhhhhhhh, you might be talking about the “courageous” anonymous IC whistleblower[s] de jour…right?….but no: they’re paid to do what they are doing.
Human Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm right, so I have every right to be righteous > about it. It's a duty, in fact. > > Get over it.
[Definitely not meant as a comment to my comment. Meant to be threaded at the bottom as a response to D&D's OP.]
> [The] 'courageous' anonymous IC > whistleblower de jour…right?. . . > they’re paid to do what they are doing.
If that is a serious statement, I wonder where you get your information. Do you know who the whistleblowers (it is plural, you know) are? Have you seen their personal finances?
Because if the answer to either question is negative, you are making stuff up.
I see. You assert something with no evidence, I ask if you can provide evidence, and rather than answer that question you launch into a personal attack on me.
Would it be fair for a reader to interpret that as acknowledgement that you have absolutely no factual foundation for your statement?
As for refraining from introducing politics to this thread, if you were to go back and carefully read the posts you might notice that it was in fact you who violated the rule. And the moderators can easily delete your bullshit without compromising the integrity of D&D's thread.
To me this is an argument about morals vs ethics (righteous vs right).
I have found that people who defer to their morals never have to take responsibility for their decisions because if they make the wrong choice they can defer to their moral framework and say things like "that's the way I was raised" or "God made the laws not me".
Unfortunately taking no responsibility for one's choices tends to mean than no intellectual or emotional growth is realized. No ownership of one's mistakes means that they will happen again and again. It is an off-putting characteristic of cult members.
It seems like whistle blowers are rarely celebrated. We exmos are whistle blowers in our circles of TBM family and friends and clearly not celebrated. Family would just as soon send us into hiding than look us in the eye or try to explain us to their fellow TBM-ers. Snowden has nothing on us.
It's interesting in mormonism--the minute we start being *right,* we're no longer *righteous.* Such a bummer.
Rather than attack the message, the messenger is attacked. That is the way the powerful handle a whistle blower--destroy their reputation, their credibility. Say they are in it for the money or the fame.
Or in the case of ExMos, say they want to sin or were offended or anything but address the facts presented.
I am afeared that in this country, like the Mormon church, "righteousness" at any cost trumps inconvenient truths every time. That's just not right. (Pun intended.)
Whistle blowers almost always lose materially and professionally even if they are right. People may celebrate the whistle blower's courage and contribution, but she'll make enemies inside her organization and her bosses will never fully trust her again. So their careers stagnate and they lose all hope of making it to the top. If a whistle blower conversely opts to find a new job, potential recruiters will always wonder about her discretion.
The only three ways that whistle blowers dependably gain from their actions are if 1) they are emotionally damaged and are motivated by some pathological need, 2) they believe that what they are doing is morally imperative, or 3) both. These psychological possibilities likewise feed into potential employers' decisions. Few want an employee who puts integrity above loyalty.
So anyone who is acting on purely moral considerations is truly a hero.