Introduction
Whistle blowing are actions of individuals say in a company the employee or former employee to make know the hidden conducts of his or her counter parts to the superior internal authority for instance the misconduct of the manager or to the external superiors or the public. The moral permissibility or requirement of whistle blowing is the greatest controversial issue due to hits double effect. Therefore, one has to make choices on which effect to give chance that are whether to betray the company or counterpart (humanity).
For one to make a decision one has to clearly define and understand the ethical and moral issues and controversies in the work place and the overall community. For instance, you need to understand what exactly is ethical or morally acceptable to do and to avoid considering the general effects your actions. In addition, one needs to weigh the subsequent double impact of your actions and therefore taking informed actions without favor.
In the context of professional ethics and its associate morality, whistle blowing is the only available consideration as morality rejects the idea of choice and interests of persons for individual gain. Therefore, under the stipulated conditions one has to consider the principles and conditions stated by De George that is when one obligation is to whistle blow or permitted to whistle blow.
However, circumstances determine whistle blowing since controversial ethical or moral conducts are opinions. People differing on an ethical or moral misconduct show the different circumstances facing the people. As there exist no difference between a whistle blower and an innocent person who would have done nothing if he/she was aware of the misconduct. Therefore, it is up to one to choose between facing the wrath of the immoral doers and doing the right action that no one opts to do.
In relation to this engineering firm. Whistleblowing has been applied in reporting the unethical behavior which took place in the De George Company. This case highlights the circumstances and situations where an engineering firm will be required to report the unethical behavior in an organization. This case therefore gives the conditions necessary for the company to whistle blow.
An engineer may be allowed whistle blow when the moral authority is attached to the case to be reported about and they are also to report the unethical behavior, this means they have a moral duty to report these unethical acts in the company. The engineers therefore have booth the moral duty and moral authority to whistle blow or setting alarms pertaining to the unethical behavior in the organization.
According to De George, whistle blowing is permissible under several conditions. The harm that the company or its products cause to the general public should be of considerable magnitude and effect to the public. For the whistle blowing to be acceptable, the engineers must have presented their concerns to their superiors and failing to act then the engineer can report to the public. If the supervisors fail to satisfy the needs of the engineer, the engineer can go forward to report the facts of the case. The engineer must have gone through all the necessary procedures before reporting the act, for instance, consultation with the board of directors.
According to the De George, the engineer must have documented the evidence such that the external parties or observers can be easily convinced when they access the facts that relate to the act and the same time it can cause considerable effect to the company. The evidence should therefore be strong in order to avoid the serious threats or hazards to the employees or the public.
In the evaluation of De George’s criterion, James referred to George as being lenient. James argued that several conditions must be met in order for whistle blowing to take place. The degree of seeing the severity of the wrongdoings. He argue that this model does not give us guidance in relation to the cases like sexual abuse, privacy, or the industrial espionage therefore may not solve some issues which makes it makes it not practical in real terms.
This model gives engineers loose grounds in relation to whistle blowing making them easily fall apart from the responsibilities of whistleblowing. He argues that engineers are always willing to take high risks and therefore exposed to greater chances of causing social harm. The principle of morality suggests that people should avoid doing harm to others.
He claims that the engineers should not be to whistle blow because they will appear to be moral heroes or saints. This case is not applicable in the context of engineers therefore considered impractical. The engineers are always expected make sacrifices which entails high risks. The engineers are regarded to conduct their profession in the context of high quality work which considers the social responsibility as well as the environmental considerations.
According to Richard De George there are specific criteria that need to be considered for a whistle blowing to be morally justified. First he says that whistle blowing can only be justified if the presumed product may cause serious and considerable harm to the public for instance, a certain company wants to produce certain product and that product may cause considerable harm to innocent public it will be advisable to whistle blow. An engineer working for that company is therefore allowed to whistle, blow to protect the interest of the public. The product may be profitable yielding so much profit to the company but the side effects may be detrimental to the public.He further claims that whistle blowing is as well permissible when the employees are reporting their concerns to their seniors. When an employee is reporting his or her work related problems to the managers they are allowed to whistle blow. If one for example, is experiencing a given problem there is need to give evidence which may require exposure of some weaknesses or the negative side of the company. This is allowed because the information is not exposed to the outsiders. It is also reasonable in that an employee cannot continue to suffer in the name of protecting the company’s interest.Finally, he explores that employees not being able to get satisfaction from their superiors, they should be allowed to whistle if they feel they are not satisfied with the services of their superiors. There are times when senior executive members of the company are infringing the rights of the senior employees and are not adhering to their grievances. This is impunity and misuse of power and so the employees have the right to whistle blow.
In conclusion the paradoxes of whistle blowing are of essence in facilitating both the moral duty and obligation in regard to the general public.
Works CitedNader, Ralph, Peter J. Petkas, and Kate Blackwell. Whistle blowing: the report of the Conference on Professional Responsibility. New York: Grossman Publishers, 2002. Print.Westin, Alan F., Henry I. Kurtz, and Albert Robbins. Whistle blowing: loyalty and dissent in the corporation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Print.
