Philosophy
I. Introduction
A common definition of whistle-blowing refers to it as the manner by which an employee discloses an unethical practice within an organization. The disclosure is usually done to concerned authority, and it typically involved compromising one’s loyalty to an employer, in favor of the greater good. Consequently, there are essential components of whistle-blowing, a) a person intends to make the information known by the public, b) the information is communicated and becomes part of public record, c) the given information relates to a nontrivial offense within an organization, and d) the person who made the report is not a journalist but an employee or a former employee of the organization (Johnson, 4). The choice of whether an employee should blow the whistle is a controversial and highly debated concern, largely because of the element of professionalism that is involved in it. This paper aims to relate the case of Jeffery Wigan, a former chemist of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company who disclosed about the inside secrets of Big Tobacco (Lyman, n.p)
II. Description of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Whistle-Blowing Case
In the majority of cases, most whistleblowers find themselves in chaotic situations after coming out of the public to disclose about the ugly secret that they know. They represent one among the key mechanisms that expose unethical behavior, and while some whistleblowers remained unknown, there were a few who became widely popular because of their controversial disclosure (Carroll, 903). One among the most celebrated whistle-blowing case was that of Jeffrey Wigand, when he decided to reveal about the illegitimate manufacturing practices of the Brown and Willaimson Tobacco Company. In line with cooperating with the investigators, Wigand revealed about how the third largest tobacco company in the United States misled its consumers about the nature of addictive nicotine in the company’s cigarettes. It was found that the company disregarded research findings about the additives that are used in manufacturing the cigarettes, in addition to that, it concealed documents that can be used against it in cases of lawsuits filed by dying smokers.
III. The Professional Morality of Whistle-blowing
There are people who questioned his professionalism, but Jeffrey Wigand stood his ground, despite criticism against his alleged unethical act and disloyalty for disclosing company secrets. He argued that he was not a bit disloyal, but in fact he “was loyal to a higher order of ethical responsibility” (Doe, 298). Professionals like doctors, lawyers, and chemists, enjoy a high sense of respect from the society because of their specialized knowledge and skills that are acquired from years of education and training. In line with the respect bent towards their professions, they are also esteemed for their special sense of accountability to the public. As members of specific profession, they are not only expected to perform their duties as employees or as members of a certain organization, but that they are supposed to conform with certain duties and responsibilities which are not normally expected from other people. The professional morality of whistle-blowing, on the onset, is often met with denial, thus the whistleblower is also subjected to issues of credibility and doubt. As pointed out, the courage to challenge authority with the intent to expose their wrongdoing is impressive, but it is in keeping up with the fight in the face of suspicion, contempt, ridicule, and other undeserved salvos that one demonstrates a high level of integrity (Downs & Swienton, 404).
IV. Loyal Agent’s Arguments
An essential part of professionalism is that one is respected, not only for one’s responsibility towards the employers but also to the public. Nonetheless, in line with their sworn statements as members of a certain profession and their responsibility to their employers, professionals, has the duty to support and work towards the interest of their employers. In their capacity as professionals and trusted employees, they are expected to abide by a uniquely secured privacy, thus they have “to hold sacred the disclosures within this zone of professionally-protected communication” (O’Toole & Mayer, 13). This responsibility was raised by Michalos, and was referred to as the loyal agent’s argument. Based on its premise, a person who acts in a representative role to another, is justified to act towards serving the interest of that particular individual. That is, employees are considered as legal representatives of the organization they work for, and it is therefore their duty, not only to perform their task, but also to defend and secure the information derived from that particular job. Consequently, complications arise when the professional comes to a point where his public pledge comes in conflict with the interest of the employer.
Accordingly, there is the tension that comes between a professional responsibility to the public, and his commitment and loyalty to an employer. For example, when a chemist is employed, it is his duty to serve and support the business interest of his employer, yet he must adhere to the highest ethical standard expected of his profession. As provided, it is their duty to promote and protect the legitimate interest of their employers, including safeguarding proprietary information. However, they also have a sworn statement to serve the public and community welfare interest, and this includes his active concern over the health and welfare of the community as a whole (Kourany, 111).
V. Rule Utilitarianism Perspective on Whistle-blowing
Based on the concept of rule utilitarianism, it is pointed out that the act of conforming to a specific practice is justifiable when it leads to better results. It was posited that a professional should hold onto ethical values because it is the most appropriate thing to do. That is, under the rule of utilitarianism, the correctness of an act is subject to the extent of good that follows. In a given situation, a professional is expected to abide by the rule implemented by the employer, thus he should maintain his loyalty, unless there is a good reason to deviate from it.
When Jeffery Wigand decided to blow the whistle, there were many people who questioned whether it was right for him to disclose company secrets. As a consequence for his act of revealing about the illegal act of the company, he was accused of being disloyal to the company that provided him with so much benefit. Nevertheless, he deemed it to be more appropriate to be disloyal to the organization, for the benefit of the public. His professional responsibility to the public comes first, despite knowing the consequences of his act on his career and personal life. His act of blowing the whistle cause him too much, but this did not deter him from upholding the public interest before his own. While many people would not have considered doing it, he bravely exposed the illegal acts within his company despite threats and uncertainties. Word Count 1134
Works Cited
Carroll, Craig. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Corporate Reputation. SAGE Publications, 2016. Print.
Doe, John. American Betrayal. Xlibris Corporation, 2013. Print.
Johnson, R. Whistle-blowing: When it works--and why. Lynee Rienner Publishers, 2003. Print.
Kourany, Janet. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
Lyman, Rick. "A Tobacco Whistle-Blower's Life is Transformed."International New York Times 1999: n. pag. Print.
O'Toole, James, and Don Mayer. Good Business: Exercising Effective and Ethical Leadership. Routledge, 2013. Print.
