|
|
Situational Ethics
So, there are some people who are down on Mark Felt because he "broke the trust of his office" and "lied" (when he said he wasn't Deep Throat). Clearly, he committed a small "injustice" because he saw that a bigger injustice was being done. But couldn't you argue that Nixon committed his small injustice because he was afraid, should he lose, a larger injustice would be done to America?
I'm not saying that's true. I think he was just power-hungry and paranoid. But, for arguments sake, let's say that's the case. How do we draw the line such that one injustice is better or worse than the other? That's a tough question.
I'm not being exactly fair because I'm throwing it out for discussion without actually considering it too deeply. But, such is life. In the end, I think history determines the correct party, much the same way we distinguish between revolutionaries and terrorists.
Frankly, I think Felt did the right thing, regardless of his motives. To admonish him for breaking the trust of his office in the face of a dishonest administration would be like admonishing a German soldier because he refused to follow orders at Auschwitz. Perhaps if more folks did the honorable thing by being slightly "dishonorable" at a crucial moment, the world would be a better place.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment
<< Home