On 07/15/2013 10:32 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Can honor ever trump oath? I think your question is unanswerable, not because of lack of context, but because both "honor" and "oaths" are ideals, not real things. And the answers to questions about ideals are always just as idealistic as the questions ... which means they're ultimately meaningless.
What matters more, I think are the expected outcomes of potential actions. In the Snowden example, what outcomes are possible then probable if you leak? What outcomes are possible then probable if you don't leak. Once you've got a decent handle on that tree, then you can prioritize those outcomes. The highest priority, most probable outcome is the one you should work toward. And if that means you leak, then you leak. One thing I think is missing from the Snowden case that might have been present in other cases is that our military industrial complex has plenty of _experts_ in such "what if" methods. And that's part of why I classify Snowden with O'Keefe. I see no evidence Snowden engaged in any significant effort to explore the outcomes tree. If I saw that evidence, I would likely change my mind about him. But, as it stands, I see an agenda-driven child who lies to get a position, then almost _immediately_ grabs the documents and runs. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella But my fuse gets shorter every day ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
