Why Is It Ethical To Whistle Blowing?
To Whistle Blow or Not To Whistle Blow That Is the Question
The book defines a whistleblower to be someone who "Sounds an alarm from within the very organization in which they work, aiming to spotlight neglect or abuses that threaten the public interest." Whistle blowing can save an organization from performing unethical operations, but at the same time can be detrimental to the future employment of the whistleblower. Therefore, I believe that in certain circumstances, whistle blowing is necessary for the company's well-being, but is it worth it to whistle blow when your future career is at risk? In addition, I believe that in a majority of circumstances where a person's career is not a risk, that there is still no ethical obligation …show more content…
to whistle blow.
What type of situation determines whether there is an ethical obligation to act and be a whistle blower? I believe that there is no ethical or moral obligation to act unless there is physical or emotional harm on yourself or others, and in certain circumstances threatens the public's best interest. In most cases where there is an ethical obligation to act, I still believe that neither I nor many others would whistle blow in these situations because most people, including myself, look out for our own self interest.
To understand in which situations an ethical or moral obligation to whistle blow occurs, certain standards or "rules" need to be adopted. One of the best theories, in my opinion, on when it is morally required to whistle blow is The Standard Theory. This theory states that an individual is morally required to whistle blow when the following five conditions are met:
1. The organization to which the would-be whistleblower belongs will, through its product or policy, do serious considerable harm to the public.
2. The would-be whistleblower has identified that threat or harm, reported it to her immediate superior, making clear both the threat itself and the objection to it, and concluded that the superior will do nothing effective.
3. The would-be whistleblower has exhausted other internal procedures within the organization or at least made use of as many internal procedures as the danger to others and her own safety make reasonable.
4. The would-be whistleblower has evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that her view of the threat is correct.
5. The would-be whistleblower has good reason to believe that revealing the threat will prevent the harm at reasonable cost.
Simply put, this theory states that people have a moral obligation to prevent serious harm to others if they can do so with little cost to themselves. In a majority of instances, the problem lies with believing that there is little cost to you for whistle blowing. One of the most reoccurring costs displayed for whistle blowing is the loss of a job. In my opinion, there are very few instances where I would whistle blow because of the uncertainty of keeping the job.
First, I will start with an example of an instance where I do find an employee morally and ethically obligated to whistle blow. Enron was once the seventh largest company and displayed one of the most disturbing and detrimental corporate fraud cases ever. Enron executives were propelled by greed to establish numerous spin-off partnerships in order to gain greater wealth at the expense of stockholders and the corporation's bottom line. Enron executive's dishonesty about profits and accounting practices that were misleading and dishonest attributed to Enron's bankruptcy. (Puig, 2005) It was the Enron executive's greed for higher wealth that created the downfall of the company and badly hurt many shareholders, a majority of which were Enron employees. As this example demonstrates, there was serious harm to not only employees of the company, but also numerous shareholders for the unethical practices taking place at Enron. If an employee observed the unethical business practices of Enron in the early phases of the scandal and whistle blew about these practices, it could have saved the company from becoming bankrupt and also the many employees that lost their jobs and large amounts of money. Even though I believe that there is an ethical and moral obligation to whistle blow in this situation, I still believe that I would not have due to the uncertainty of losing my job and making managers angry at my disloyalty.
Case 11.2 "Would You Blow the Whistle on Yourself?" raises the question on whether there is an ethical responsibility to whistle blow on yourself if you receive a grade that is higher than what you deserve on an exam.
This is the type of situation where a person's career is not at risk, but I believe that there is no ethical obligation to whistle blow. If the roles were reversed and you received a grade that was less than what you rightfully earned, then I believe everyone would report this issue to the professor, but I still believe that there is no ethical obligation to report this. The only difference between the two situations above is that less people would report the issue if there grade was higher than they actual deserved, but in both instances there is no ethical obligation to report the issue. There is no ethical obligation to report the grade because it did not threaten others nor produced wrongdoing onto others. The professor made the mistake, while the student did nothing wrong in this situation. Therefore, there is no ethical obligation to report the issue to the …show more content…
professor.
Another issue with no ethical obligation to report wrongdoing is a situation where you receive more money from an ATM machine than what is deserved. This issue is parallel to the situation above, where the person receiving the money has done no wrongdoing, and no one was put in a threatening situation due to the extra money being dispensed. Therefore, there is no moral obligation to take your own time to report the issue to the bank for their wrongdoing.
Many believe that the employee holds a "prima facie duty of loyalty to one's employer." I believe that this is true and is one of the main driving forces, besides loss of job, which prevents many employees from partaking in whistle blowing.
Whistle blowing for the company in which you work for is like being a traitor during war. Therefore, the defining factor of whether there is a moral or ethical obligation to whistle blow is determined through a cost benefit analysis of whether the detrimental effects the company may cause due to their unethical business practices is outweighed or not by the negative effects placed upon the individual who is whistle blowing. People hold higher weight towards the effects upon themselves, therefore making the cost benefit analysis rarely conclude in favor of whistle
blowing.
In conclusion, whistle blowing is rarely accomplished successfully, but when an employee has enough bravery to speak out against the unethical practices of the business in which he or she works for, they are sometimes considered heroes and can save a company from losing everything and preventing harm to many of its customers and other employees. Whistle blowing is something that can not be accomplished on a whim, nor ever should in any situation because of the detrimental effects that can be placed on the whistle blower. By following The Standard Theory of whistle blowing and taking the time to realize if the situation can cause harm to others, but also knowing that negative consequences will not be displaced on you, the whistleblower, it can be a valuable tool for future employment and can possibly save the company you work for and many people that could have been hurt through the unethical practices.
Reference
Puig, Claudia. "'Enron': Portrait of greed ." USA Today 22 April 2005 03 Nov 2007 .
The book defines a whistleblower to be someone who "Sounds an alarm from within the very organization in which they work, aiming to spotlight neglect or abuses that threaten the public interest." Whistle blowing can save an organization from performing unethical operations, but at the same time can be detrimental to the future employment of the whistleblower. Therefore, I believe that in certain circumstances, whistle blowing is necessary for the company's well-being, but is it worth it to whistle blow when your future career is at risk? In addition, I believe that in a majority of circumstances where a person's career is not a risk, that there is still no ethical obligation …show more content…
to whistle blow.
What type of situation determines whether there is an ethical obligation to act and be a whistle blower? I believe that there is no ethical or moral obligation to act unless there is physical or emotional harm on yourself or others, and in certain circumstances threatens the public's best interest. In most cases where there is an ethical obligation to act, I still believe that neither I nor many others would whistle blow in these situations because most people, including myself, look out for our own self interest.
To understand in which situations an ethical or moral obligation to whistle blow occurs, certain standards or "rules" need to be adopted. One of the best theories, in my opinion, on when it is morally required to whistle blow is The Standard Theory. This theory states that an individual is morally required to whistle blow when the following five conditions are met:
1. The organization to which the would-be whistleblower belongs will, through its product or policy, do serious considerable harm to the public.
2. The would-be whistleblower has identified that threat or harm, reported it to her immediate superior, making clear both the threat itself and the objection to it, and concluded that the superior will do nothing effective.
3. The would-be whistleblower has exhausted other internal procedures within the organization or at least made use of as many internal procedures as the danger to others and her own safety make reasonable.
4. The would-be whistleblower has evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that her view of the threat is correct.
5. The would-be whistleblower has good reason to believe that revealing the threat will prevent the harm at reasonable cost.
Simply put, this theory states that people have a moral obligation to prevent serious harm to others if they can do so with little cost to themselves. In a majority of instances, the problem lies with believing that there is little cost to you for whistle blowing. One of the most reoccurring costs displayed for whistle blowing is the loss of a job. In my opinion, there are very few instances where I would whistle blow because of the uncertainty of keeping the job.
First, I will start with an example of an instance where I do find an employee morally and ethically obligated to whistle blow. Enron was once the seventh largest company and displayed one of the most disturbing and detrimental corporate fraud cases ever. Enron executives were propelled by greed to establish numerous spin-off partnerships in order to gain greater wealth at the expense of stockholders and the corporation's bottom line. Enron executive's dishonesty about profits and accounting practices that were misleading and dishonest attributed to Enron's bankruptcy. (Puig, 2005) It was the Enron executive's greed for higher wealth that created the downfall of the company and badly hurt many shareholders, a majority of which were Enron employees. As this example demonstrates, there was serious harm to not only employees of the company, but also numerous shareholders for the unethical practices taking place at Enron. If an employee observed the unethical business practices of Enron in the early phases of the scandal and whistle blew about these practices, it could have saved the company from becoming bankrupt and also the many employees that lost their jobs and large amounts of money. Even though I believe that there is an ethical and moral obligation to whistle blow in this situation, I still believe that I would not have due to the uncertainty of losing my job and making managers angry at my disloyalty.
Case 11.2 "Would You Blow the Whistle on Yourself?" raises the question on whether there is an ethical responsibility to whistle blow on yourself if you receive a grade that is higher than what you deserve on an exam.
This is the type of situation where a person's career is not at risk, but I believe that there is no ethical obligation to whistle blow. If the roles were reversed and you received a grade that was less than what you rightfully earned, then I believe everyone would report this issue to the professor, but I still believe that there is no ethical obligation to report this. The only difference between the two situations above is that less people would report the issue if there grade was higher than they actual deserved, but in both instances there is no ethical obligation to report the issue. There is no ethical obligation to report the grade because it did not threaten others nor produced wrongdoing onto others. The professor made the mistake, while the student did nothing wrong in this situation. Therefore, there is no ethical obligation to report the issue to the …show more content…
professor.
Another issue with no ethical obligation to report wrongdoing is a situation where you receive more money from an ATM machine than what is deserved. This issue is parallel to the situation above, where the person receiving the money has done no wrongdoing, and no one was put in a threatening situation due to the extra money being dispensed. Therefore, there is no moral obligation to take your own time to report the issue to the bank for their wrongdoing.
Many believe that the employee holds a "prima facie duty of loyalty to one's employer." I believe that this is true and is one of the main driving forces, besides loss of job, which prevents many employees from partaking in whistle blowing.
Whistle blowing for the company in which you work for is like being a traitor during war. Therefore, the defining factor of whether there is a moral or ethical obligation to whistle blow is determined through a cost benefit analysis of whether the detrimental effects the company may cause due to their unethical business practices is outweighed or not by the negative effects placed upon the individual who is whistle blowing. People hold higher weight towards the effects upon themselves, therefore making the cost benefit analysis rarely conclude in favor of whistle
blowing.
In conclusion, whistle blowing is rarely accomplished successfully, but when an employee has enough bravery to speak out against the unethical practices of the business in which he or she works for, they are sometimes considered heroes and can save a company from losing everything and preventing harm to many of its customers and other employees. Whistle blowing is something that can not be accomplished on a whim, nor ever should in any situation because of the detrimental effects that can be placed on the whistle blower. By following The Standard Theory of whistle blowing and taking the time to realize if the situation can cause harm to others, but also knowing that negative consequences will not be displaced on you, the whistleblower, it can be a valuable tool for future employment and can possibly save the company you work for and many people that could have been hurt through the unethical practices.
Reference
Puig, Claudia. "'Enron': Portrait of greed ." USA Today 22 April 2005 03 Nov 2007 .