You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Paradoxes of Whistle-blowing
Pages 4 (1004 words)
1. What makes whistle-blowing morally problematic - that is, why does it need to be justified According to Davis, why isn't the police officer, the criminal informant, or the clerk who happens upon evidence of wrongdoing in another department, a whistle-blower
Third, the act is required, whether or not it is moral to do so or not. The act needs to be performed because of a rational non-moral reason. In this context, whistle-blowing is morally problematic because there is confusion on whether whistle-blowing should be something morally permissible, morally required or at the other extreme morally wrong. Whistle-blowing involves revealing information that ordinarily, would not be revealed, because one is entrusted with that information. By this definition, the police officer, the criminal informant or the clerk who happens upon evidence of wrongdoing in another department, are not whistle-blowers because they have not been entrusted with the information, even if they were while working under false pretences.
According to the standard theory, whistle-blowing is permissible when an organization's product or policy is harmful to the public; when the prospective whistle-blower has identified the harm, reported such to a superior, and the superior does nothing about it; the prospective whistle-blower has done everything possible within the organization to call attention to the identified harm. ...
Not exactly what you need?