On line quiz

Due process:

Right to have a just cause: substantial

Right to a hearing, etc.: procedural

Whistleblowing:

As an employee I have a duty to be loyal to the employer, i.e. help the employer be successful.

Some people think that it is always wrong to blow the whistle, because it is disloyal.

If we are allowed to blow the whistle, then we need to justify that decision.

Michael Davis: he thinks that we can justify whistle-blowing

Ronald Duska: whistle-blowing is not a moral issue as such, we have a right to reveal any information we like.

Davis:

Standard theory: it is supposed to reflect what most people consider as whistle-blowing and what they find is justifiable to do.

Consequentialist: the consequences count.

Required/permissible whistle-blowing:

It is permissible if we have tried everything to solve the issue, but we cannot say for sure that there is a threat: permissible.

Required, it is our duty to blow the whistle: we can ascertain objectively that there is a threat and it is possible that we can prevent the harm.

The theory is based on a cost-benefit analysis: what happens to the whistle-blower himself/herself is also relevant to consider.

The paradigm case of whistle-blowing: Boisjoly case, 0-rings:

Test the standard theory:

Paradox 1: the whistleblower does not consider the harm he may do to himself.

Paradox 2: prevention of harm is not relevant, because the accident had already happened.

Paradox 3: failure. It is not relevant if we prevent any harm.

Complicity theory: Davis’s attempt to improve our theory of whistle-blowing.

Complicity theory: non-consequentialist, what is morally relevant to discuss is if we contribute to any wrong-doing or not. If we do, then we should blow the whistle. If we don’t, then we should not.

1st condition: what you reveal derives from your work

2nd condition: voluntary member

3rd condition: the organization has to be legitimate, a criminal organ. Cannot be considered legitimate

4th condition: you contribute to the wrong-doing, unless you blow the whistle.

The paradigm case of whistle-blowing: the Boisjoly case

We avoid the paradox of burden: Boisjoly did not consider the consequences for himself

We avoid the paradox of preventing harm: it is not what should be considered

The paradox of missing the point of moral action: sometimes we are responsible even if we do not cause the problem.

Duska: business is all about profits, the shareholder theory.

There is no loyalty in the business world:

1st reason: it is about profits

2nd reason: you can only be loyal to individuals, not to abstract entities.

Individualism: loyalty is a relationship between individuals independent of profits considerations

Holism: rejected

Conclusion: whistle-blowing is not a moral issue, because we do not owe anybody loyalty in business.