Security for freedom and vice versa is one of Western civilization’s longest and oldest ideological disputes between public figures and thinkers. I believe that this philosophical conflict comes from ancient Sparta and Athens’s economic and political confrontation. The digitalization of all human processes and activities has provided societies with anonymity. However, it also gave the state an inescapable means of surveillance. The time for making an ultimate decision regarding freedom versus safety is running out quickly for humanity. I believe similar to Sophie Duroy (2020) that, in truth, “it is rather a trade-off between the rights of a few (the others), for the benefit of state institutions (national security)” (para. 4). Even for the sake of additional security, giving extra control and allowing more supervision to the state is dangerous for society, as absolute control eventually turns into authoritarianism. Because authoritarianism is always hazardous and violent, giving up one’s privacy does provide neither basic nor additional safety.
I suppose consequentialism would be best suited for the state to promote and implement a plan to keep the public safe in exchange for their rights and privacy. The end goal is a central element of such projects, and the consequentialist ethic would fit better than any other philosophical concept to justify the measures, restrictions, and prohibitions that would be taken in the process. The main ethical principle of consequentialism is consequences over applied means and wasted resources if the former is superior in terms of morals and effect (Consequentialism, n.d.). Simply put, it is obvious that the security of society is a good thing, and therefore taking away people’s freedom too.
Consequentialism. (n.d.). Ethics Unwrapped. Web.
Duroy, S. (2020). Security vs liberty: The terms of a flawed but persistent discourse. EUIdeas. Web.