Critique of Degeorge’s Position and Argument on Whistleblowing
Richard DeGeorge’ argues that whistleblowing is morally justifiable in certain circumstances. DeGeorge argues that whistleblowing is ethically justifiable when the whistleblower faces a conflict between their duties to their employer and the public or ethical principles. He states that a whistleblower should only act when they are sure that the action they are taking is in the public interest and is the only way to expose and stop an unethical or illegal act. He argues that whistleblowing is morally justifiable in certain circumstances (De George, 1981). He states that in order to justify whistleblowing, five conditions must be met: 1) the whistleblower must be sure that the action they are taking is in the public interest; 2) the whistleblower must be sure that the action they are taking is the only way to expose and stop an act that is unethical or illegal; 3) the whistleblower must have a reasonable basis for their concern; 4) the whistleblower must have a good faith belief that the information they are providing is true; and 5) the whistleblower must use appropriate methods to communicate the information.
I agree with DeGeorge’s five conditions for whistleblowing. These conditions provide a framework for ensuring whistleblowers act responsibly and in the public interest. By requiring that the whistleblower be sure of the public interest, the only way to expose unethical or illegal activities, and have a reasonable basis for their concern, DeGeorge ensures that whistleblowers are not acting out of malice or revenge (De George, 1981). Furthermore, by requiring that the whistleblower have a good faith belief that the information they are providing is true and use appropriate methods to communicate the information, DeGeorge is ensuring that whistleblowers act responsibly and in the public interest.
Whistleblowing can be difficult for an individual, as it often requires them to go against their employer and put their job and reputation at risk. However, when faced with a conflict between their duties to their employer and their duties to the public or ethical principles, individuals should decide to act in the public interest. This is a difficult decision and one that should not be taken lightly. However, when the whistleblower is sure that the action they are taking is in the public interest and is the only way to expose and stop an unethical or illegal act, it is the moral choice to act.
The connection between Gene James and Mike Martin with Richard DeGeorge’s work
Gene James provides a critical analysis of Richard DeGeorge’s work on whistleblowing. He argues that DeGeorge’s approach to ethical whistleblowing needs to be narrower, more complex, and provide a comprehensive picture of the ethical issues. James argues that DeGeorge fails to consider the full implications of whistleblowing and its impact on the whistleblower’s career. He notes that DeGeorge’s approach fails to account for the potential negative consequences of whistleblowing, such as the risk of retribution from employers or the loss of friends and professional relationships (James, 2001). He also argues that DeGeorge’s focus on rule-based ethical theories needs to account for the situation’s complexities and the moral dilemmas that whistleblowers may face.
James further argues that DeGeorge’s approach to whistleblowing is too idealistic. He argues that DeGeorge fails to consider the situation’s reality and the potential consequences of whistleblowing (James, 2001). He also argues that DeGeorge needs to consider the implications of whistleblowing from a psychological perspective, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.
Finally, James argues that DeGeorge’s approach needs to account for the various types of whistleblowing. He notes that DeGeorge needs to consider the different motivations of whistleblowers or the different types of whistleblowing. He argues that DeGeorge’s approach needs to consider the complexity of the issues and provide a comprehensive picture of the ethical issues surrounding whistleblowing (James, 2001). However, He acknowledges the validity of DeGeorge’s arguments from ethical standpoints on whistleblowing.
I agree with Gene James’ critique of Richard DeGeorge’s argument that whistleblowing is morally justifiable in certain circumstances. James argues that DeGeorge is too restrictive in his definition of whistleblowing, as he only considers cases in which the whistleblower is sure that the action they are taking is in the public interest. James states that this definition fails to consider cases in which the whistleblower is aware of potential harm to the public but is still determining the full extent of the harm or the best way to address it.
I agree with James’ critique that DeGeorge’s definition of whistleblowing is too restrictive. In some cases, the whistleblower may be aware of potential harm to the public but may not be sure of the full extent or the best way to address it. In such cases, it is important to consider the whistleblower’s intent, as well as the potential consequences of their actions (De George, 1981). If the whistleblower acts out of a sincere desire to protect the public and not out of malice or revenge, their actions should be considered morally justifiable.
On the other hand, Mike Martin argues that Richard DeGeorge’s work on whistleblowing needs to be completed and needs a thorough analysis of both the risks and benefits of whistleblowing. He states that DeGeorge makes several assumptions about the efficacy of whistleblowing but fails to investigate the full implications of the practice. Martin argues that DeGeorge’s work needs to adequately consider the potential consequences of whistleblowing, such as the loss of employment and possible legal repercussions. He also suggests that DeGeorge must adequately discuss whistleblowers’ motivations and consider the complex ethical questions posed by whistleblowing ((Martin, 1992). Finally, Martin argues that DeGeorge’s work needs to comprehensively evaluate the various societal interests that are impacted by whistleblowing.
Therefore, I agree with Mike Martin’s critique. Mike Martin points out several areas in which it is incomplete or lacking in thoroughness. He argues that DeGeorge fails to take into account the potential risks and consequences of whistleblowing, such as the loss of employment, and needs to adequately consider the motivations of whistleblowers (Martin, 1992). Moreover, Martin suggests that DeGeorge does not comprehensively evaluate the various interests impacted by whistleblowing and fails to address the ethical questions the practice poses adequately.
Furthermore, whistleblowing should not only be considered morally justifiable in cases where the whistleblower is sure that their action is in the public interest. Whistling should also be considered morally justifiable in cases where the whistleblower is aware of potential harm to the public but is uncertain of the full extent or the best way to address it. In such cases, it is important to consider the whistleblower’s intent, as well as the potential consequences of their actions. If the whistleblower acts out of a sincere desire to protect the public and not out of malice or revenge, their actions should be considered morally justifiable.
Fragmentation of Knowledge and Responsibility in Large Organizations
In the article by David Luban (et al.), the authors argue that when it comes to certain professions, such as engineering, there is a professional responsibility and duty that extends beyond simply “doing one’s job .”This professional responsibility and duty are based on a sense of moral obligation, and it requires that the professional take into account their moral judgment and not simply follow orders or directives from superiors. The authors point to the fragmentation of knowledge and responsibility in large organizations as a key factor in the situation where engineers may make ethically questionable decisions.
The authors argue that this fragmentation of knowledge and responsibility can lead to a situation where the engineers make ethically questionable decisions and may need more knowledge and understanding of the full context. Furthermore, the engineers may be pressured to follow the orders of their superiors, even though these orders may involve them in morally questionable activities.
The arguments given by Luban support DeGeorge’s argument in that they point out that engineers may need full knowledge or understanding of the context in which they are making their decisions. Furthermore, the authors point out that engineers may be pressured to follow the orders of their superiors, even if these orders are ethically questionable. In light of this, the engineers should not be held morally responsible for decisions made by the company executives, as they may not have full knowledge or understanding of the bigger picture.
Ethical Reasoning That Led To Wrong-Doing by the Large Organization
The ethical reasoning that led to the wrong-doing by the large organization is most likely consequentialist. Consequentialist reasoning is based on the notion that the consequences of an action are the ultimate determinant of its moral worth. In this case, the executives at Ford likely weighed the moral costs of making their product safer against the economic costs associated with doing so and ultimately decided that the economic costs outweighed the moral ones (De George, 1981). This decision was likely made to maximize the organization’s profits, which is a specific goal of consequentialist reasoning.
Consequentialist reasoning is a type of ethical reasoning that focuses on an action’s outcomes rather than its moral character. In this case, the executives at Ford were more concerned with the potential financial costs of making their product safer rather than the moral implications of doing so (De George, 1981). This likely led them to prioritize their economic interests over the safety of their customers and the public, resulting in the wrong-doing in question.
Conclusion
Richard DeGeorge’s study of whistleblowing concludes that the practice has both ethical and practical benefits. Ethically, whistleblowers help to protect vulnerable populations, maintain trust in the public, and prevent corporate abuse. On the practical side, whistleblowing can reduce the costs associated with corporate malfeasance and provide a valuable check to corporate power. Whistleblowers motivated by a sense of justice rather than personal gain are more likely to be successful in their efforts and will also be more likely to gain public support.
Despite the potential benefits of whistleblowing, it is still a risky endeavor. Organizations should strive to create a culture of openness and transparency to minimize its need. Whistleblowing is an important tool in the fight against unethical and illegal behavior. I agree with DeGeorge’s position that whistleblowing is morally justifiable in certain circumstances, and individuals need to be willing to stand up for what is right and protect the public interest.
References
De George, R. T. (1981). Ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations: The Pinto case. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 1(1), 1-14.
James, G. G. (2001). Whistleblowing: its moral justification. Markets, Finance and the Professions, pp. 310–311.
Martin, M. W. (1992). Whistleblowing: Professionalism, personal life, and shared responsibility for safety in engineering. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 11(2), 21–40.
write