To Whistleblow Or Not To Whistlebow - That Is The Question

To Whistle Blow or Not To Whistle Blow Ð'- 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 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 Ð'- 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