Whistle-blowing: Its Benefits and Detriments - Research Paper Example

Professional Ethics 4 May Whistle-blowing: Its Benefits and Detriments Introduction Each decision made by a human being would always have an underlying reason behind it, may it be because of a personal belief, or because of some essential lack thereof. Likewise, an external act is, more often than not, rooted or developed from a decision. Therefore, an act in itself is an effect, a natural consequence that arose from a decision. It is intriguing how a thought, an idea, a teaching, a personal belief, a moral and ethical system, can influence so much of one’s own decision, and act thereafter. A person would always be influenced, directly or indirectly, by a system of thought that may is usually universally acceptable. How then did whistle-blowing come about, and how does it affect ethical and moral systems per se? Whistle-blowing is an act wherein a person, normally the employee, is exposed to some grave wrong, illegal work, or unacceptable practice within a company, workplace, or among professionals. Due to the wrong committed, the employee publicly announces the wrong done, thinking of it as the only remaining effective way of helping put a stop to such practice, after all the other means prove to be a failure. In such situation, the person committing the act of exposing the company, or the employee/s thereof, is referred to as whistle-blower/s. As emphasized by McConnell, whistle-blowers expose a past or present wrongdoing that is committed by a company, an organization, or even by a group of medical experts (575). The act of whistle-blowing may be triggered by various reasons, depending on the circumstances of each case, but it all has the same purpose, which is to point an accusatory finger against an organization or company (572) for committing a wrong so grave, that it has to be publicized to the world. As to what degree a wrong done may be considered as worthy of whistle-blowing, that is for the whistle-blowers’ own prerogative. However, despite the fact that it is somehow subjective on the part of the whistle-blower to decide as to whether something is worth exposing, it can be said that the judgment arrived at by the whistle-blower is highly swayed by an ethical system or moral belief that he or she lives by. Benefits A person is generally a moral being. Whatever wrong or evil act a person does is most probably a deviation from the universal precept of what is considered as morally and ethically acceptable for humans. For example, it is morally wrong to kill. Law, jurisprudence, cultural norms, even religion (at least for the theists), support this general rule. This is a universal moral law that most people would live by. In relation to a whistle-blower’s position, he or she publicly reveals a wrong done by a company or organization, not just because the wrong being done is contrary to acceptable practice within the industry or company mission, or criminal in nature, but more so, because the wrong committed is clearly an inexcusable violation of morally accepted principles. Aside from that, the wicked acts or practices employed produce either mass destruction or negative effects on the affected patients or clients. In this situation, it is irrelevant then if the act or practice is presently being committed or not, what is important is that a grave moral wrong exists that will harm people, whether it concerns a small or huge percentage of the population. Whistle-blowing does not only affect the parties involved, but it has a permanent and long lasting effect on society as well. For instance, whistle-blowing serves as a reminder to companies and organizations that they cannot always get away with such things. Companies and organizations are always highly encouraged and expected to not just act within the confines of what is considered as acceptable within company regulations and governmental laws, but to act with reverence and respect of universal moral decrees and norms. Also, whistle-blowing incite companies and organizations to keenly observe the internal policies and practices that they employ. If there is a practice, rule, or policy that seems obsolete, archaic and not currently applicable anymore in relation to the times, or if there seems to be a practice that causes more harm than good to those who patronize the company or organization, then such regulations and practices must immediately be discarded and abandoned. Another good effect of whistle-blowing is that it serves as a warning for the clientele or patients of such organizations and companies to be cautious and aware of any suspicious, illegal, or patently evil act or practice that the latter may have, or is currently committing. This does not mean that that the people who employ the products or services of these organizations or companies must be irrationally, and over the top paranoid all the time. A proper and acceptable amount of caution is enough. Hence, the principle of checks and balances is utilized, to the advantage of both the company or organization, and the patients or the clientele. Detriments Much has to be examined on the act of whistle-blowing before making any final conclusion regarding the matter. It is obvious that any whistle-blower will expect reprisals of different sorts. These can range from mere insults to as far as death threats. Such inconveniences and harassments does not only fall upon the whistle-blower himself/herself because he/she believes what is being done is for the sake of moral uprightness. However, are the actions of individuals who do whistle-blowing morally and ethically absolute? It can be said that the act of whistle-blowing has a negative effect within an organization or company, and for good reason. “It is a breach of loyalty, as it ascribes wrongdoing to the organization and some members. Also, it creates mistrust between the employer and employee/s, and it may severe important relationships permanently” (576). For the whistle-blower, his/her morality could be held in doubt as the issues of trustworthiness and loyalty are questioned. This means that even if it may be that the whistle-blower has done one morally and ethically good act, it breaks another moral and ethical conduct. In that case, it would be considered a moral defeat since what is morally upheld in one act is balanced out by an act that is also morally disapproving. Another matter would be the moral question between an individual and other people. Since, after all, an organization or company is composed of other people such as other staff, personnel or employees, an act of whistle-blowing will surely affect individuals as well. Let us take this scenario. If the whistle-blower causes the company or organization to close down or cut down in its service capacity, most likely other individuals would lose their jobs. Some of these people are just likely earning to make a living, to feed their families, to pay their rent or bills. Would the actions of the whistle-blower then be considered moral at the expense of other’s needs? If the whistle-blower does not take that into consideration, that would be seen as a lack of compassion and consideration. Also, reprisals done against the whistle-blower will also affect the people close to him/her, whether they are family or friends. The lack of consideration for such discomfort and inconvenience to people of such value would also show negligence of care, all of that being morally negative. Alas, when could it be considered for an individual to do some whistle-blowing? The answer is that it actually depends on two things. “Is blowing the whistle in this situation permissible? Is it obligatory?” (576). By the question of permissible, it answers on when is it plausible to whistle-blow on a company or organization. In this matter, the would-be whistle-blower must have enough evidence and findings to prove that whatever the organization or company is doing would be deemed as unethical or immoral, not to be considered a small matter. “If an organization is doing something ethically questionable, but the harm done is minor, it seems unlikely that an act as drastic as blowing the whistle will be permissible” (576-577). Just as well, before the whistle-blower intends to blow the whistle, he/she must consider the existence of other alternative actions. Perhaps, if blowing the whistle is all there is to it, the “agent should also make sure that she has accurately estimated the damage that her act will do to the organization. Accusations of wrongdoing do harm to organizations, even if they prove to be false; and this harm reverberates to the employees and clients” (577). The second question deals with the matter whether whistle blowing is obligatory. Simply put, one is not obliged by necessity to whistle-blow, but it is a moral act “beyond the call of duty” (578). Although, if the organization or company the agent is working for does serious harm, the act of whistle-blowing could be considered obligatory. “The more serious harm, the more likely it is that the agent is required to go public with her charges” (578). Another would be the agent’s relation to the victims of the organization’s malpractice. If the agent has clear knowledge of both the workings and effects of such practice to others, that would be reasonable enough to prompt the agent to whistle-blow if such actions continue to be done freely. Conclusion Whistle-blowing is indeed an act of moral nobility beyond what is necessary. In our modern age, when most of the time ethical lines tend to be crossed for the sake of profit and business advantages, it is noteworthy that there are individuals who are willing to step out of their comfort zones and take huge risks for what is right to prevent harm to the public good. Their selflessness shows the goodness of an individual to his/her fellow humans. Nevertheless, such an act should be guided wisely and with good reason in mind. When such good effects clearly outweigh the bad, whistle-blowing is permissible: whether it is obligatory or not (581). However, if the bad effects are heavier than the good in measure, it is best to try to deal with the matter within the organization or company. If ever the whistle-blower has the moral hand in the matter, the organization or company must be willing to respect the stand and rights of such an individual, and should deal with him/her fairly. As for the society, the public must take the matter in good faith and with good conscience. Work Cited McConnell, Terrance. “Whistle-blowing.” A Companion to Applied Ethics. Eds. R.G. Frey and Christopher Wellman. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 570-581. Print. Read More