Paradox Of Missing Harm
The three paradoxes that Davis claims the standard theory give rise to are the paradox of burden, the paradox of missing harm, and the paradox of failure. According to Davis, the paradox of burden perceives the whistle-blower as a good Samaritans because they take on substantial risk in their career, financial securities, and personal relation. The standard theory does not provide sufficient condition to justify such risk. Second, the paradox of missing harm argues that the whistleblower is reported damage after the fact, and they often act in the condition that they can prevent harm. Finally, the paradox of failure indicates that the whistleblowers have little success in preventing damage.
As a defender of the standard theory, I would
argue base on the moral obligation in which require for all the profession to do the right thing when comes to issue that involves public health and safety. This should be a standard duty that sometime may require self-sacrifice for the good of the society. “When the moral concerns are great, elementary morality and personal integrity can require people to make substantial sacrifices.” (MB. Page 517) This selfless act refers to as “supererogatory”, an act of above and beyond the call of duty. The three paradoxes tend to exaggerate the important of self-interest and rationalize away the individual’s obligation and the responsibilities.
The complicity theory stated that an individual requires reviewing what they know to the public when the following condition is met. The whistleblowers can only review the information derive from their work for an organization; the person must be volunteer member for that organization; they believe that the organization is engaged in serious moral wrongdoing, and their work may contribute to the wrong. The most significant difference between the two theory are the complicity requires the whistleblowers to believe that their work will have contributed to the wrongdoing if they do nothing. David’s theory of justified whistle-blowing improves over the standard approach because it is more specified and when he tests the theory against Boisjoly’s case, he can overcome the three reasons that standard theory failed at first.
As a defender of the standard theory, I would
argue base on the moral obligation in which require for all the profession to do the right thing when comes to issue that involves public health and safety. This should be a standard duty that sometime may require self-sacrifice for the good of the society. “When the moral concerns are great, elementary morality and personal integrity can require people to make substantial sacrifices.” (MB. Page 517) This selfless act refers to as “supererogatory”, an act of above and beyond the call of duty. The three paradoxes tend to exaggerate the important of self-interest and rationalize away the individual’s obligation and the responsibilities.
The complicity theory stated that an individual requires reviewing what they know to the public when the following condition is met. The whistleblowers can only review the information derive from their work for an organization; the person must be volunteer member for that organization; they believe that the organization is engaged in serious moral wrongdoing, and their work may contribute to the wrong. The most significant difference between the two theory are the complicity requires the whistleblowers to believe that their work will have contributed to the wrongdoing if they do nothing. David’s theory of justified whistle-blowing improves over the standard approach because it is more specified and when he tests the theory against Boisjoly’s case, he can overcome the three reasons that standard theory failed at first.