Depends on a lot of factors, who, when, why.
Unless one knew the circumstances it would be impossible to say.
It's like the question 'Is murder ever ethical?'
Posted: 26 August 2011 - 12:00am — Samuel
Depends if you subscribe to deontological ethics (some rules must never be broken) or utilitarian ethics (greatest good).
As a utilitarian I believe that if it's possible to conceive of a scenario whereby the potential loss/gain would far outweigh the loss suffered by invasion of privacy, then phone tapping can indeed be justified.
But it's not that simple - those doing the tapping would need to demonstrate convincingly that the loss of privacy would be justified by the gains involved, and those gains would have to compensate the aggrieved party appropriately. If the person being phone-tapped is demonstrated to be a criminal, then the privacy loss they suffer can be offset against their own debt to society.
So ultimately Samuel is right - it depends entirely on the circumstances. But the question can still be answered 'yes' because it's an absolute.
Interested in supporting St James Ethics Centre by volunteering with us? Learn more about current volunteering roles available at the Centre.
Support our work!
St James Ethics Centre is a fully independent not-for-profit and relies heavily upon financial and in-kind support from individuals and organisations. If ethics matters to you, please support our work.
Read about ethics
Want to learn more about ethics and read about ethics-related issues? Visit our Ethics Articles section, where you'll find hundreds of articles about a very diverse array of topics. Read more.
latest ethics poll
Comments
Depends on a lot of factors, who, when, why.
Unless one knew the circumstances it would be impossible to say.
It's like the question 'Is murder ever ethical?'
Posted: 26 August 2011 - 12:00am — Samuel
Depends if you subscribe to deontological ethics (some rules must never be broken) or utilitarian ethics (greatest good).
As a utilitarian I believe that if it's possible to conceive of a scenario whereby the potential loss/gain would far outweigh the loss suffered by invasion of privacy, then phone tapping can indeed be justified.
But it's not that simple - those doing the tapping would need to demonstrate convincingly that the loss of privacy would be justified by the gains involved, and those gains would have to compensate the aggrieved party appropriately. If the person being phone-tapped is demonstrated to be a criminal, then the privacy loss they suffer can be offset against their own debt to society.
So ultimately Samuel is right - it depends entirely on the circumstances. But the question can still be answered 'yes' because it's an absolute.
Posted: 2 September 2011 - 3:27am — GYoung