reading assignment

I. Blowing the Whistle

A. Blowing the whistle involves revealing some privileged ‘insider’ information about your employer or client to some outside ‘external’ party like the government or media.

B. Blowing the whistle appears on the surface at least to be a violation of faithful agency—specifically, violating confidentiality and conflict of interest duties.

C. Blowing the whistle is of course potentially harmful to the client or employer, but it is also potentially harmful to the whistleblower.

D. There are some legal protections for whistle blowers, however, to help prevent any retaliatory response from clients or employers.

II. The Grounds for Professional Loyalty

A. Spectrum of Possible views on the permissibility of blowing the whistle

1. Never Permissible: because there is an absolute duty of loyalty

2. Always Permissible: because there is no duty of loyalty

3. Sometimes permissible

a. Because some other duty overrides loyalty

b. Because the grounds for loyalty are eroded

B. Duska Argument against Professional Loyalty

P1: Bonds of mutual fulfillment are necessary for loyalty

P2: There are no bonds of mutual fulfillment between professionals and businesses.

2a: Profit is the primary function of business.

2b: Profit cannot secure bonds of mutual fulfillment

C: So there are no grounds for professional loyalty

C. Argument for Professional Loyalty

P1: Bonds of existential interdependence (co-dependence in pursuit of common purpose that defines identity) are sufficient for loyalty.

P2: There are bonds of existential interdependence between professional and businesses.

2a: Coordinating the resources needed to solve complex material problems is the primary function of business.

2b: Professionals aim to solve complex material problems through the application of specialized knowledge.

C: So there are adequate grounds for professional loyalty

III. The Standard Account: Harm Prevention

A. General Perspective

1. Context of whistle blowing: Prima facie conflict between duties to client/employer and duties toward the public/environment

2. Purpose of whistle blowing: Prevent some harm to the public

3. So blowing the whistle would be permissible only when safety (duty to public) overrides loyalty (duty to client/employer).

B. De George Criteria

1. Conditions for whistleblowing

a. serious harm

b. report to immediate superiors

c. exhaust internal channels

d. documented evidence

e. can likely prevent harm by blowing the whistle

2. Rules for applying conditions

a. If any of 1a-1c are not met, then blowing the whistle is impermissible

b. If all of 1a-1e are met, then blowing the whistle is obligatory

c. If all of 1a-1c are met, but either 1d or 1e is not met, then blowing the whistle is permissible but not obligatory.

C. Positives

1. Makes sense of idea of professionals as torn between social and business responsibilities.

2. Fits with NSPE code principle talking about blowing whistle in circumstances that endanger life or property and BER use of “immanent and widespread” criteria for whether permissible or required to go to public authorities that may be appropriate.

3. Seems to fit with strong intuitions about lots of cases.

D. Problems

1. Conflict model of BUS vs. SOC duties could easily foster an atmosphere of suspicion and perhaps even justify retaliatory responses of companies to whistleblowers.

2. Does not allow for supererogatory whistleblowing: blowing the whistle is either impermissible if loyalty not overridden or obligatory if loyalty is overridden by safety; for duties override by obligating. So, contrary to strong intuitions, blowing the whistle can never be permissible but not obligatory.

3. Counter examples

a. Cases where blowing the whistle permissible even though there is no serious harm to prevent: like cases where client or employer disregard professional codes, standards, or judgment.

b. Cases where there is some inherently risky project that threatens significant harm but that level of harm is required to solve given complex material problems and the client/employer has done nothing wrong.

IV. Alternative Account: Company Reorientation

1. Perspective

a. Context: Question of blowing the whistle arises when there is a conflict between the superficial interests and the proper function of a company.

b. Purpose: Point of blowing the whistle is to reorient the company back toward its proper function.

c. Justification: Blowing the whistle can be permissible when the rounds for professional loyalty have been removed.

2. Criteria

a. Conditions

1. Serious disorientation

2. Cannot reorient internally

3. Can reorient externally.

b. Rules

Impermissible: One of 1-2 are not met.

Obligatory: All of 1-3 are met.

Supererogatory: All of 1-2 are met but not 3.

3. Positives

a. Blowing the whistle is in fact motivated by doing what is truly good for the company, so does not foster an atmosphere of suspicion or justify retaliation.

b. Blowing the whistle can be supererogatory.

c. Explains counter-examples: when a company is obstinately disregarding professional judgment, codes, or standards, then they are seriously disoriented; but not if they are non-culpably putting out an inherently risky product.

4. Problems

a. Possible Counter-examples

Cases where no serious disorientation but permissible to blow the whistle to prevent some serious threat of harm to the public

Cases where there is serious disorientation but not permissible to blow the whistle because no serious threat of harm

b. What duty obligates blowing the whistle? If 1-2 met then it cannot be loyalty; and reorienting the company does not seem to have anything to do with duty to public safety.