我不知道斯诺登是叛徒还是英雄。我的想法是，他两者都不是，但是，这种评估不是基于爱国者法案或任何其他人为制定的立法工具。我怀疑，作为一个理性、会思考的人，斯诺登一定充分考虑并接受了自己行为的后果。他可能为自己的决定痛苦了很长一段时间，但他很清楚，他曾经知道的生活将被剥夺。显然，他已经准备好做他必须做的事情来让别人明白他的观点。因此，他现在在俄罗斯(?)，或者在其他地方潜逃。任何真正的民主国家的法律都是为公共利益而适当地构思和制定的，这一点可能总是有争议的。我们作为民主进程的受益者，通过行使我们投票给作为民主进程实际参与者的立法者的权利来批准这一进程。因此，参与式民主是一个有点误导性的说法。我们这些选民，更现实地说，是赌徒。 We cast our ballots, with the sure and present hope that those we elect are best suited to ensure that our welfare is safeguarded. But it is all a leap of faith, or better, a roll of the dice. Because we are like the man who has TWO watches: he is never truly sure what time it is.

I do know that Ed Snowden is a hero.
事实上，我对像肯这样的所谓康德主义者的态度感到困惑和深深的不安。我是个功利主义者，但我发过誓。即使作为一个功利主义者，我也很重视这一点。我承诺要捍卫美利坚合众国的宪法不受国内外一切敌人的攻击。军队的每个成员都要宣誓，包括所谓的情报人员。为什么康德学派很难认识到这一点很重要，而且非常重要。
肯，当然艾德必须做他该做的。是的，这是道德责任。他承诺捍卫宪法，他做到了。他周围的每个人都有同样的义务，但只有他做到了。这表明了一世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区个巨大的道德失败，没有人在一个有责任的位置上认真对待他们的宣誓。
Why do Kantians want to defer to a low level law as the relevant principle, when it is obvious to any neutral observer that what matters is the higher principle of one's oath? Ken asked who is Ed to do this. He is a human being who promised to do that sort of thing. What really matters is why do Kantians not understand that a oath to defend the constitution is a powerful thing, a deep obligation that almost no one lives up to.
The armed forces is filled with people who know things that mean what they are doing is illegal. They swore an oath and multiple international agreements (does "Nuremburg" mean anything to you?) have affirmed that the individual has a moral and now legal obligation to stop any illegal activity they see even if it is their own officers who are the criminals.
Why can't Kantians take this oath seriously?

Wow!!! Mr. Snowden exhibited a profound intellect and deep understanding. I was not at all prepared to find myself admiring him. I am embarrased that my country forces him to live in exile.

我不知道斯诺登是叛徒还是英雄。我的想法是，他两者都不是，但是，这种评估不是基于爱国者法案或任何其他人为制定的立法工具。

dbk.

Doesn?t this look a little bit like a Robin Hood-esque story? I can?t look into this matter without thinking that Snowden is either being seen as the good guy who is considered a hero because he is dismantling the bad guy?s plan, or as the bad guy because he?s acting against the law. What is lacking is digging further into the question of ?does this law have any meaning when the other side ? the NSA - is also acting wrongfully?? To me, it?s either ?all of this ?both the NSA and Snowden?s actions - is very bad? or Snowden?s work is legitimate. But to argue that his activity was unlawful and not mention the context of the unlawfulness, the fact that clearly the other side?s actions were unconstitutional, does seem a bit odd.
Snowden is not like a ?normal? criminal in the sense that what he did was so that the population could know of practices that they might deem wrongful. So can the law, the way it is, apply to him? In fact, can law as an argument even be used here when there is clearly no regard for law (or privacy) on the other side of the issue? Shouldn?t the philosophical question regarding whistleblowing be freed from arguments against the law or pro-law, say, ?he is wrong in what he did because he acted against the law?? Because the other side isn?t exactly following the law either. What exactly are we basing our argument pro- and against whistleblowing on? Shouldn?t these arguments be independent from considerations of law?
出于对检举行为本身的哲学考虑，我可以考虑这样的担忧:斯诺登告诉了我一些我可能不想被告知的事情，从而剥夺了我的自主权。当然，另一方也通过保持其实践的秘密来消除自主性，等等。然后，有人会说:他替我做了决定;这是对其他公民的家长式做法，因此是错误的，等等。或者，他所做的决定就像一个护士瞒着一个身患绝症的病人，他说他得了病，因为护士认为不让病人知道是最好的。这两种情况的相似之处在于，都是由外部人士为一个人决定他或她应该知道什么。这样对话就可以展开了。但是斯诺登?不能简单地用合法性或不合法性来从哲学上考虑美国的行动。
It?s also not about saying ?Snowden is a traitor/hero because he revealed x.? What does being a traitor/hero have to do with this matter? It seems like a quick judgment or at least a completely different question to me - what makes a hero, what makes a traitor -, one independent from whether he acted wrongfully or not.

May we agree that several things have happened since July of 2015? Those events and circumstances could have gone differently-that's the reality of space, time and synchronicity. But, are we any better off, or are things worse? A large portion of the American public appears to be almost as pessimistic as I have been for the last year or so. Polls show younger folks are the most disillusioned and disappointed. Many who are experts in matters of history and demography say: it is mostly cyclical; all things pass and return on a recurring basis-you may count on that. I do not recall what finally happened with the Patriot Act, or if anything happened at all. I must say that I do not believe there is much ado right now about 'forming a more perfect union'. I remarked (in 2015)that a man who has one watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure. This is true, even if the man with the one watch has a faulty one. I have a watch that, when purchased, was a source of some pride-of-ownership-not a Rolex, mind you, or a Patek-but, a nice Citizen eco-drive. It has lain dormant in my dresser drawer for ten or fifteen years. I no longer have a need for it, nor the pride-of-ownership it once symbolized. I write philosophy and offer commentary on many ideas and notions that interest me. And, I try to understand those which, as a practical matter, do not.

有时，这一切似乎毫无希望，然而，它继续吸引我的兴趣。我想这就是我继续自我教育的原因。过上我能想到的最好的生活…继续做你和体能训练的事，教授。这是城里唯一的游戏。