Philosophy 223
Ethical Treatment of Employees:
Whistle-blowing
The Basics
• Whistle-blowing is an attempt by a member
or former member of an organization to
disclose wrongdoing in or by the
organization. It takes both internal and
external forms.
• The difficulty with whistleblowing is that it
seems in obvious conflict with another
obligation: loyalty.
Who Blows the Whistle?
• The average whistle-blower is a 47-year-old family man
with 7 years on the job and a strong belief in universal
moral principles.
• Most whistle-blowers who work for private businesses
are fired by their employers, 20% remain unemployed
after 6 months, 25% report a decrease in family income,
17% lose homes, 54% report harassment by their peers
at work, 80% report physical deterioration, 10% attempt
suicide.
• Despite these figures, most whistle-blowers admit of
few regrets and assert that they would do it again.
A Difficult Position

Whistle-blowers are typically pulled in (at least) three
directions.
 All employees have obligations to their
employers and their co-workers which are
relatively obvious and easy to specify.
 However they also have obligations to the
communities in which they live and work, up to
and including the global community.
• If this isn’t complicated enough, whistleblowers
obviously have a responsibility to themselves and
to their loved ones.
“Some Paradoxes”
 Davis briefly examines the case of Roger
Boisjoly and his blowing the whistle on
Morton-Thiokol following the Challenger
disaster. He then applies this case to the
standard theory of whistle-blowing and
discovers that this case does not seem to
satisfy the demands of this theory.
 As a result, he proposes an alternative
“complicity theory” of whistle-blowing.
What is morally problematic with
whistle-blowing?
 Whistle-blowing is morally problematic
because employees are seen to have a
prima facie duty of loyalty to their
employers
 Prima facie – (first face) at first sight – accepted
as correct until proven otherwise
 Why does it make sense to say that
employees owe loyalty to their employers?
The Standard Theory of WhistleBlowing
 W-B is permissible when (149):
 (S1) The organization that the whistle-blower belongs to will,
through product or policy, do serious and considerable harm.
 (S2) The whistleblower has reported the threat of harm to her
superiors and it is obvious that her superiors will do nothing
effective.
 (S3) The whistle-blower has exhausted all additional internal
procedures.
 W-B is required when S1-S3 obtain and (149):
 (S4) The whistle-blower has evidence that would convince a
reasonable, impartial observer that she’s correct.
 (S5) The whistle-blower has good reason to believe that blowing
the whistle will prevent the harm at a reasonable cost.
Justifications of W-B
 W-B justified by application of a (fairly weak)
version of the harm principle (for W-B).
 “people have a moral obligation to prevent serious harm to
others if they can do so with little cost to themselves”
(149).
 In this instance the harm principle is a form of
“minimally decent samaritanism.”
 Not a form of “good samaritanism” which
requires going beyond the moral minimum.
Three Paradoxes of Whistle-Blowing (on
the Standard Theory)
 Paradox of Burden – whistle-blowers generally
act at considerable risk to themselves, thus the
weak justification offered by the specified
harm principle is inadequate.
 Paradox of Missing Harm – only a subset of
harms are “serious and considerable,” many
significant harms (deception, injustice) don’t
rise to the standard.
 Paradox of Failure – whistle-blowers are rarely
successful at preventing “serious and
considerable harm.”
An Example: The Challenger
Disaster
 The Standard Theory fails to show why
Roger Boisjoly is a justified whistle-blower.
 Yet Boisjoly is widely considered a prime
example of a justified whistle-blower.
 Under the standard theory not only should he not
be praised but he should be condemned for
betraying his loyalty to Morton-Thiokol.
 We need a theory of whistle-blowing that
can explain why cases like that of Boisjoly
are justified.
Complicity Theory of W-B
 W-B is morally required if:
 (C1) What you reveal derives from your work at the
organization.
 (C2) You are a voluntary member of that organization.
 (C3) You believe that the organization is engaged in
serious moral wrongdoing.
 (C4) You believe that your work will contribute to the
wrongdoing if you do not reveal it publicly.
 (C5) You are justified in your beliefs regarding C3 and
C4.
 (C6) Beliefs C3 and C4 are true.
What about Boisjoly?
 Though he has problems with the standard
theory, he does quite well with the
complicity theory.
 (C1) Boisjoly’s testimony consisted of information
regarding his work for Thiokol.
 (C2) Boisjoly was voluntarily employed with Thiokol.
 (C3) Boisjoly was convinced that Thiokol was misleading
the commission.
 (C4) The information he passed on to his superiors was
used in the cover-up, thus he was complicit in the coverup.
 (C5) Boisjoly was justified in his beliefs.
 (C6) Boisjoly’s beliefs were true.
“W-B and Employee Loyalty”
 Duska begins by examining the notion that
whistle-blowing requires a moral
justification. He then goes on to examine
notions of loyalty, ultimately concluding
that companies are not something that can
legitimately demand loyalty.
 He concludes that if employees do not owe
loyalty to their employers then there is no
need to morally justify whistle-blowing.
Company Loyalty?
 Loyalty is a wholehearted devotion to
another person.
 Loyalty entails self-sacrifice without the
expectation of reward.
 We can have loyalty to groups that are
bound by mutual fulfillment and support.
 Companies are not such groups since they
are solely bound by division of labor and the
generation of profit.
Loyalty and W-B
 A common suggestion is that w-b is disloyal
because it is analogous to calling a foul on your
own team (158).
 Duska argues that this is a bad analogy:
 business has no end with clear winners or losers such as in a
game;
 the “game” of business affects all stakeholders, not just the
“players” who actually work in the firm.
 Thus, there is no duty of loyalty owed to an
employer and since employees do not owe a
duty of loyalty to their employers there is no
need for a moral justification for whistleblowing.