by David Danks: Departments of Philosophy & Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
The main idea of this reading is to examine the ethical implications of mass electronic surveillance, both nationwide and worldwide. To elaborate on his thinking, Danks first compares consequentialist and deontological viewpoints, which are frameworks that typically contradict each other because of their strict core beliefs. In this case specifically, he questions whether violating a person’s natural right to privacy can really be justified by the so-called positive benefits that citizens will reap from this system of widespread surveillance. Consequentialism can sometimes override deontology when the potential negative consequences are far too great for the majority of people (utilitarianism) that violating certain universal rules can ultimately be permissible. However, in this specific case of mass surveillance, it is difficult to assign potential negative consequences to a set quantity, as there is no information to fully determine what would happen without taking action because it has not actually occurred yet. Therefore, Danks points to a different argument as the ideal model: Pascal’s wager about the existence of God. He constructs a chart using variables like positive and negative infinity, and L and C, which represent the utility and cost of the decision, respectively. According to the structure, the expected value of mass surveillance is much larger than no mass surveillance, so it can be deduced that the rational bet is to implement mass surveillance, even if it means breaching the necessary human rights. This supports a consequentialist argument. Danks then mentions two main objections to Pascal’s wager: a non-satisfactory difference between the payoff utilities (the two possible alternatives) and when the choice does not fittingly influence the outcome. Depending on these qualities, Pascal’s wager may or may not be employable in every case. To conclude, Danks again stresses that the primary focus of his paper is not to disprove, but simply to investigate carefully, considering all perspectives without too many assumptions. Ethical dilemmas are more than just what is beneath the surface.
I really enjoyed this research paper because I came across concepts that I have never encountered before and learned a lot about the style of writing a philosophical paper. At first, I didn’t quite understand Pascal’s wager from the provided diagram, but after doing a little research of my own, I gained a confident grasp on what the concept was. It’s a unique way to analyze and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of two choices (i.e. belief in God’s existence), and it was also easier for me to comprehend when the chart was replaced with mass surveillance instead. I thought that the arguments surrounding consequentialism and deontology were strong and relevant, and I liked how the author thoroughly examined the loopholes met in each position. As a whole, I felt like it was well-written, intriguing, and a great first start to the blog!