final philosophy paper

profilealqahtanilama
whistleblow_1.ppt
Home>History homework help>final philosophy paper

Richard De George

In the Pinto case the Engineers did nothing wrong in not going public with gas tank safety concerns.

It is not their place to second guess management decisions.

They have an obligation of loyalty to the company

DeGeorge’s requirements for the moral permissibility of whistleblowing

  • 1) if the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable.
  • 2) if they make their concerns known to their superiors
  • And
  • 3)if, getting no satisfaction, from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors.

Requirements for moral obligation to blow the whistle

  • 1-3 above
  • And
  • 4) must have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his/her view of the situation is correct & the company policy wrong
  • 5)strong evidence exists that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm.

Qui Tam Law

http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/

The False Claims Act (FCA) was originally enacted in 1863 as a response to widespread

abuses by government contractors during the Civil War. The law was little used until 1986,

when amendments were enacted which strengthened the law and increased monetary

awards.

False Claims Act

REASONS FOR THE 1986 AMENDMENTS:

1. In 1981, the GAO estimated that the government lost between $150-$200 million in the

relatively few fraud schemes that it detected. The GAO estimated losses from undetected

fraud in the tens of billions of dollars. See GAO Report to Congress, A Fraud in Government

Programs: How Extensive is it? How Can it be Controlled?, 1-15 (1981).

2. Congress acknowledged that the Government was sustaining enormous losses due to

fraud schemes.

  • If the Government can pass a law that will increase the resources available to confront fraud against the Government without paying for it with taxpayers‘ money, we are all better off. This is precisely what [the False Claims Act] is intended to do: deputize ready and able people who have knowledge of fraud against the government to play an active and constructive role through their counsel to bring to justice those contractors who overcharge the government.
  • 132 Cong. Rec. H9382-83 (October 7, 1986).