Essay by dustinsylviaCollege, Undergraduate November 2002

download word file, 3 pages 4.3

Everyday people are put in the position to decide, "What ought I do." There are certain situations in business where you might be aware of something or know something that could affect others in a negative way. Whistleblowing is a way for an employee to stop this from happening, but there are time and instances when this is not permissible or obligatory. This paper discusses some of the different occasions when whistleblowing is permissible or obligatory.

If a person knows that if their company is to put a product out in the market that will cause serious injury to consumers that is almost obvious in what to do. You blow the whistle. But, you have to go through a process before you can come to the conclusion as to what is obvious. To merely justify morally the permissible side of whistleblowing involves three key items which all must be followed and applied.

First, you must exhaust all channels of communication through the infrastructure of your company. Try to let an internal person know, like a manager, and tell them your concerns. Also, this action that is to take place must cause significant harm to someone or something. Whether it is physical, mental, loss of money, or loss of business and the list could go on. You cannot just make assumptions or guess that this action will harm something. You must have something to justify your findings. You need to have hard evidence so as not to just act upon your instincts, have something to prove your theory. If you have imposed these three steps and cannot get the company to change its decision you can permissibly go external with your findings. External meaning going public, like the news, newspaper, or stockholders if that's the case. If you followed the steps...