Ch.9: When or under what circumstances is whistleblowing not morally required?
26 Mar
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
26 Mar
Ch.9: When or under what circumstances is whistleblowing not morally required?
Professional Ethics Discussions 
Posted by Tabitha Johnson on 2011/07/31 at 8:08 AM
Whistleblowing is not morally required if the company is not involved in illegal actions. It is also not required if the company is not harming others. Plus, you are not morally obligated to whistleblow if the company is not violating a persons rights. Tjohnson
Posted by Kayla Torres on 2011/08/03 at 4:26 PM
Whistleblowing is not morally required when the individual witnessing the actions is aware that they are legal, even if they may be immoral. The individual may find it more beneficial to themselves to keep quiet than to face the long-term effects of whistleblowing. As long as the company is not directly violating the law or harming its clients, consumers, or employees no action needs to be taken by the witness of any unethical actions.
Posted by Carol Kines on 2011/08/05 at 1:45 AM
I agree with James that whistleblowing is not morally required when the practice in question is not illegal, unjust or harmful to others. In this definition, it is easy to define illegal, and harmful to others is something that can be relatively easy to determine. The term unjust, however, can be difficult to define, which leaves this somewhat open to interpretation. Generally, I think that if something is going to majorly harm the profits or practices within the business, that it could be termed unjust. In addition, a practice that would be unfair to a certain class of individuals (females, minorities, etc), and is deceitful in nature would be considered unjust. In this case, it might also be deemed harmful to others, but this is subject to interpretation.
Posted by C johnson on 2011/08/05 at 5:21 AM
Whistleblowing is not morally required IF Whistle blowing conflicts with obligations to act in the interest of your employer and not to reveal confidential information
Whistle blowing can upset the relationships of loyalty and trust that organizations rely upon to take effective actions as a group.A law recognizing a right to whistle blow is open to abuse.Such a law would make managerial decision making much more difficult and companies much less efficient what should the legal protection be.
Posted by mnortey on 2011/08/07 at 6:01 PM
if an employee feels strong enough about the wrong doing within a cooperation the appropriate measures must be taken. i agree with james stating that “justified whistle blowing is based on the idea that we all have the obligation to prevent wrong doings”. but in the same manner it would be easier to approach the problem on a personal level before taking extreme measures such as whistle blowing. whistle blowing is not morally appropriate when the situation is minor and does not need the extent of a drawn out resolution.
Posted by Hilary Carr on 2011/08/08 at 2:44 PM
I believe that as long as there are no laws being broken, whistleblowing is not morally required. Even though it may not be morally required, a person still may choose to expose the immoral activities.
It is important for the person who knows about the immoral actions to consider their own self-interest before exposing activities that are only immoral and not illegal because the cost may be too great. But, a person must also consider the implications on his conscience for not exposing the immoral activities, even if they are legal, when deciding to expose or not to expose the activities.
HCarr
Posted by Mike Senchak on 2011/08/08 at 10:20 PM
James states, “All people have a prima facie obligation to blow the whistle on practices that are illegal, unjust, or harmful to others.” I tend to agree with James. Simply, is the action hurting others? and is it illegal? Many times if someone is questioning an issue to the point of deciding whether or not to whistle blow, than it is probably an issue that does need dealt with in some way. The decision becomes whether or not to deal with it publicly or in house. Additionally, a key point is that questions must be asked when considering whistleblowing. Is the information documented? Are your motives personal? Will it motivate a change for the better? Is whistleblowing in fact warranted? These are some questions that should be asked.
Posted by Michael Green on 2011/08/09 at 12:33 AM
Whistleblowing is not morally required when the person wittnessing the act knows what being done is not against any laws or company rules. He/she may be morally against what is being seen but that does not make it morally wrong in the eyes of the institution. In that case the witness needs to make the decision of whether he/she can morally be involved with the institution.
Posted by Walter Bell on 2011/08/09 at 6:21 PM
I agree with James when he states that whistleblowing isn’t required if there are no individuals being harmed. However, I feel as long as no major damage will be done to humans and as long as there is not fraud going on, I feel you don’t need to engage in whistleblowing. This is sort of the “pick your own battles” argument. You can’t whisteblow on everything because is it worth putting your job on the line and having your family possible suffer from your decision? I believe that if other people would be affected majorly by a fraudulent or harmful decision, then yes no matter what may happen to you as far as your job goes it is still worth it to whistleblow because many people will suffer the consequences if no one speaks up.
Posted by Leah Richards on 2011/08/09 at 7:47 PM
I agree with the others comments..
At times people may not agree with the morals upon which a company runs its day to day operations. However, you can’t whistleblow on morals. The only time whistleblowing occurs on a company is when the company is violating the legal regualtions or jeopardizing the safety of its employees.
Posted by Marc Kosec on 2011/08/10 at 12:04 AM
If actions of the company are within the realm of the law, it is not morally required, or recommended from my point of view, that they blow the whistle. Said corporation will report back to the public that all actions taken by the company are legal. They will also most likely take action on the employee that blew the whistle. Firing, suspension or pay cuts could be in line.
Posted by Misty Bess on 2011/08/10 at 4:15 AM
I agree with the stance taken by James in our text reading. He states that whistleblowing is morally permissible when someone’s actions are resulting in “illegal, unjust and harmful” consequences. Supported by Ross’s belief that we all have the moral duty of beneficence and nonmaleficence we are obligated to prevent situations where others may become injured, whether it be emotionally or physically. With that being said, there are also instances when whistleblowing is not a moral responsibility for an individual. If the situation does not fit the criteria set by James then one should attempt to get the matter settled by taking the claims through the chain of command set forth by the corporation to find a resolution. I believe since these original articles were written, many laws and acts have been put in place to protect an employee’s rights. In my place of employment, there are mediators hired from the outside to act as a liaison if a mutual agreement is not determined. I feel as time moves forward more and more companies are giving their companies ways to have their voice heard without compromising their loyalties. I believe whistleblowing is not morally required when after careful consideration of all the facts in the matter, one can find a less severe avenue to gain resolve in their grievances and/or if the criticism does not meet the conditions set forth by James.
MBess
Posted by Matt Tobin on 2011/08/10 at 6:12 AM
I agree in James stance of justified whistle blowing. He states that we have an obligation to prevent harm or injustice to others.As long as the practice is not harmful or illegal then it not morally required to whistle blow. I also believe that if it is known going public will not bring the necessary change then the employee may bring about more harm that good to the company than in this situation I also believe it is not morally required to whistle blow. One should examine their own motives and verify that the situation truly warrants whistle blowing. I believe one should take all steps possible to resolve the issue inside of the organization before going to external sources. I then believe it is up to the employee to decide whether this company is a moral fit for him/her or not.
MTobin
Posted by Matt Tobin on 2011/08/10 at 6:16 AM
I agree in James stance of justified whistle blowing. He states that we have an obligation to prevent harm or injustice to others.As long as the practice is not harmful or illegal then it not morally required to whistle blow. I also believe that if it is known going public will not bring the necessary change then the employee may bring about more harm that good to the company. In this situation I also believe it is not morally required to whistle blow. One should examine their own motives and verify that the situation truly warrants whistle blowing. I believe one should take all steps possible to resolve the issue inside of the organization before going to external sources. I then believe it is up to the employee to decide whether this company is a moral fit for him/her or not.
MTobin
Posted by Michael Sammartino on 2011/08/10 at 8:38 PM
I believe whistleblowing is not morally required when there is nobody being harmed financially, physically, or mentally. This includes safety concerns for employees, legalities (such as importing and exporting laws), and any other matter except what the whistleblower thinks is morally right. Morals are unique therefore what I think is wrong someone else might not. This is where laws come into play and SAY who is right/wrong. That is when whistleblowing is morally required.
-msammartino
Posted by Ashley Whitford on 2011/08/10 at 8:41 PM
In James’ article, he writes that whistle blowing is morally permissible if it meets the following conditions: the company must be engaged in practice that is doing serious harm to individuals or society, the employee reports his concern to a supervisor, if no action is taken, the employee should go up the managerial line with the issue, the employee should have documentation, and the employee must have a good reason to believe that by going public, he/she will be able to bring the necessary changes. I think that if the situation or issue does not or can not fit under the previous conditions, then whistle blowing is not morally required. I tend to agree with James’ article when he says “All people have a prima facie obligation to blow the whistle on practices that are illegal, unjust, or harmful to others.” So, if the problem comes up and it does not follow suit that it is harmful to society, then whistle blowing is unnecessary. I believe that if someone does blow the whistle in a situation where they issue does not meet the conditions James has set, the individual blowing the whistle would be putting his job and reputation on the line for very little. All in all, I think that if the situation does not meet James’ standards that he has written about in his article, then whistle blowing should be considered not morally required.
AWhitford
Posted by NChaney on 2011/08/10 at 11:17 PM
Let me first begin with that just because something may be immoral, it does not define it as illegal. In this case, I believe whistleblowing is not morally required. James defines certain guidlines throughout his article that make whistleblowing morally permissible. I agree with his guidlines, therefore if there is a circumstance that does not fall under his guidlines then it is not morally required.
Posted by Kimberly Bertmeyer on 2011/08/11 at 4:50 AM
I agree with James. Whistle blowing should only be morally required if one is aware that a corporations is practicing something illegal, unjust, or harmful to others. If the actions are not of this nature then you should not have to blow the whistle. More than likely one person is not going to be able to change the corporations actions. In these less severe cases, an individual should just focus on themselves especially if they think whistle blowing could lead to termination, blacklisting, and attacks to reputation. Even in the severe cases, I think an individual should be careful. They should try to come up with supporters within the company and get an attorney before going to a supervisor or going public. That way there is more than one person making the accusation. They should also try to collect evidence. Businesses are powerful entities and individuals should do what they have to do to protect their safety and jobs.
Posted by Nicole Zarzycki on 2011/08/11 at 6:05 PM
Whistle blowing is not morally recquired if the company is not engaging in serious harm to others, illegal activites, or violation of people’s rights. If the action is not harmful or illegall than there is not a moral obligation to whistleblow. According to James there are factors one must consider before whistleblowing: make sure the situation is one that warrants whistle blowing, examine your motives, verify and document your information, determine the type of wrongdoing you are reporting and to whom it should be reported, state your allegations in an appropriate way, stick to the facts, decide whether the whistle blowing should be internal or external, decide whether the whistle blowing should be open or annonymous, and decide whether current or alumni whistle blowing is required.
Posted by Philip Ciprian on 2011/08/11 at 8:27 PM
Whistle-blowing should only be invoked when there is harm towards another person/party/company. Otherwise, even when an action is deemed illegal, it should not be called out if it is a victimless crime. Especially if it benefits the parties involved.
Posted by Dominic DeRose on 2011/08/11 at 10:32 PM
Since Whistle blowing according to Gene G. James is required of all professionals when the dangers to the public are serious or the rights of others are/are going to be violated, or if the company is engaging in illegal activity. Therefore we can imply whistle blowing is not required when the risks to the public or the rights of others are not seriously in danger or violation, and the group in question is not committing illegal actions. Only once the individual believes the whistle blowing is justified should they pursue the step by step actions considered by James.
Posted by JScacchetti on 2011/08/12 at 2:23 AM
It is not morally required when the presented problem is not illegal or harmful to people. Even if you go public about a legal and humane problem and they were to have a negative view about it, it’s not morally permissible to whistle-blow since you will get into more trouble with the company than what the outcome would be worth. Also it’s not morally justifiable to whistle blow unless you have enough hard evidence to illicit a positive outcome and not get “screwed” in the long run.
Posted by Molly Jones on 2011/08/12 at 3:40 PM
In Glazers view of the long-term effects of whistleblowing it is, “Initially, whistleblowers expirenced some if not all the negative consequences of whistleblowing.” I think whistleblowing is an immoral act that shouldn’t be done because it can cause things like job loss, personal attacks to reputation, and black listing. Even though whistleblowing is not illegal or harmful to others there is a negative view about it now and I don’t believe that it should be done to respect others.
Posted by Michelle Green on 2011/08/12 at 3:50 PM
As James states “Justified whistle blowing is based on the idea that we all have the obligation to prevent wrong doings”. Whistle blowing is not morally required when the action is not illegal, unjust or harmful to others. I feel as though if the company is not directly violating the law or harming any people working with or for that company, than no action is required to be taken by the observer bearing witness to these improper actions. The witness may feel that silence is their best option in the long run as there are many effects they could face from whistle blowing.
MLG
Posted by sebayus on 2011/08/12 at 4:10 PM
I tend to agree with James and his presentation, “Factors to consider in whistle blowing,” on pages 319-320 in the text. His intro to this section discusses our “prima facie obligation to disclose organizational wrongdoing we are unable to prevent.” He then provides a list of some of the factors whistle blowers “should take into consideration if they are to act prudently and morally.” The very first and most important item provides an eloquent answer to this discussion question…
“Make sure the situation involves illegal actions, harm to others, or violation of people’s rights, and is not one in which you would be disclosing personal matters, trade secrets, customer lists, or similar material. If disclosure of the wrongdoing would involve the latter, make sure that the harm to be avoided is great enough to offset the harm from the latter.”
SBayus
Posted by Natalie Haynam on 2011/08/12 at 5:37 PM
From this chapter, we learned that whistleblowing is when a past or present employee discloses information that they believe to be the wrongdoing of an organization. An agency law makes it so that an employee keep confidential information they learned throughout their employment, unless it inolves the employer committing or about to commit a felony. In this case, committing a felony means participating in an illegal action; however, if the employee sees an action as morally wrong, but yet it’s still legal, they are not morally required to tell. In a work place, there are many opposing views and issues the employees view as morally right and wrong. If working in a corporation, you find the information you heard to be morally wrong by your own personal standards, whistleblowing is not morally required by you because it does not automatically make the action illegal. Also, I do not believe whistleblowing is morally required when the action doesn’t involve harming others. The action of the corporation may not be morally acceptable by the employee, but if it is legal and not harming people, there is no way whistleblowing can be morally required. If an employee participates in whistleblowing when it is not morally required, negative consequences may be imposed on them that include: job loss, demotion, and transfer. Therefore, it is important for employees to understand what actions are illegal and legal before taking action.
Posted by Alana Kane on 2011/08/12 at 8:12 PM
I believe it is not morally required to whistleblow when the company/person is not doing anything illegal, harmful to others or against company policies. Because whistleblowing can have such negative effects, the person should carefully decide if the action is substantial enough to take action. Going along with James’s article and guidelines, I believe these are the situations in which it is morally permissible to whistleblow.