This isn't about who the NSA (or anybody else) chose to place their trust, and it certainly isn't about some right-wing-authoritarian[1] desire for social order (the world isn't going to descend into chaos if critical thinking starts taking over from blindly following orders.

This is about our duties to the great ideals of freedom that this country was founded upon... and the oath Snowden took[2] to defend the same. The question you should be asking is why isn't everybody else that took this oath doing something similar?

The oath in question: (emphasis added)

    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will *support and defend the Constitution*
    of the United States against all enemies, foreign *and domestic*; that I will bear true faith
    and *allegiance to the same*; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
    or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the *duties of the office*
    on which I am about to enter.

Note that it does include a reference to the duties of the office. The problem is when those duties are in conflict with the first part of the oath, to "support and defend the Constitution". This oath is very clear about what you're supposed to prioritize ("I will bear... allegiance to the [Constitution]").

So no, Snowden's actions were not unethical, illegal, or immoral. In fact, it may be one of the few things anybody could do that is by definition patriotic. Any law he may have been in conflict - and certainly any duties he had to the NSA - are lower priorities than his defense of the constitution.

I do not envy anybody who is placed by his superiors into a situation that forces a choice between following those same superiors or following an oath to a greater ideal. That has to be one of the hardest decisions to make.

[1] meaning Bob Altemeyer's term, not the usual political meaning

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-e...