Think of it from the executives perspective:
Option A: keep mouth shut, make a shit ton of money
Option B: become a martyr, face prison time
People like Snowden are rare.
Option A: keep mouth shut, make a shit ton of money
Option B: become a martyr, face prison time
People like Snowden are rare.
In all honesty, Snowden is a 30 year old single dude, and as far as I know, he doesn't have kids. Do you think he would have done what he did if he had a family to look after?
In my opinion a person's first responsibility is to their family. So yeah, if you're married (like these executives probably are) and you're facing the choice between option A and option B, you should absolutely pick option A.
Good relationship with parents.
I'd say that is a lot to give up, in order to take the risk of being a whistleblower.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
Snowden's actions were brave, regardless of his family status, and I don't wish to downplay that even one iota, but yes, if he had a wife and three kids, it likely would have made his actions even more of a longshot.
Maybe not having kids is actually the morally correct choice, then?
Classy.
>You would let your children go hungry and live a worse life
No. Read what I wrote. The words are right there.
If the choice is "have children and commit evil to feed them" and "don't have children and don't commit evil", I choose the former. As should, I think, any right-thinking person.
The question is probabilistic. What are the chances that the former happens? What are the chances that the latter happens?
Choose accordingly.
The question is also systemic. There exists the possibility that forces larger than the individual have decided to normalize the nuclear family (and also romanticize the vision of having said family) in order to serve evil ends. What is the probability that that is the case? As time goes on, it looks far more probable than we once thought. People like you think families are in themselves beautiful. Any means justify the ends of preserving them. Seems like an excellent tool for keeping a population right where you want them.
Look up the history of the nuclear family. Notice it didn't exist pre-industrialization. Why's that?
You're taking humans -> have children for granted. I'm arguing against that dogma. Because as paradoxical as it may sound, it is trite dogma at this point in wealthy societies. We don't need these additional people, we don't need this extravagant life. It's not a matter of survival anymore. So what is it all accomplishing? What's the end?
>Having a family can be a beautiful thing.
For my morality, concerns of beauty don't trump concerns of humanity. If my having children perpetuates a cycle of exploitation, murder, pain, suffering, etc. etc. etc, then I don't have children. Regardless of how "beautiful" my experience of those children may be. It really is that simple.
And if a (wo)man tells me "I just did it to feed my kids" after committing some reprehensible act, I sympathize, because (s)he made a terrible decision in having children to start with. But I still condemn him/her.
I realize it's an argument from ignorance fallacy, and maybe there are such ways, but I'm not aware of them.