The fact that you have posed, and I am answering, questions about how
utilitarianism might be used both to encourage and to discourage
whistle-blowing implies that the answers are not clear-cut for all
situations and policy areas.
Simply put, the question for a policymaker is whether whistle-blowing
in a particular set of situations does more good than harm, or more
harm than good? If there is a high probability that the
whistle-blower is in a position to know what he or she is talking
about, and in a position to evaluate whether making the disclosure
would likely result in a significant increase in overall happiness,
then whistle-blowing should be encouraged. But if the converse of
either of these conditions is true, then whistle-blowing should be
discouraged.
I think that the best utilitarian argument for encouragement of
whistle-blowing is that, without protection, the potential
whistle-blower is likely to overvalue the harmful consequences to
himself or herself (loss of job, etc.), and undervalue the beneficial
consequences to the rest of society, of speaking out. If a potential
whistle-blower knows that he or she would be protected, he or she will
able to make a calculation based on the overall good and harm to
society.
Of course, this assumes that the policy protects whistle-blowers for
speaking up when they have a factual basis for doing so. The policy
should encourage those who reasonably believe, and especially those
who reasonably and firmly believe, that the unchecked conduct of their
organization will do more harm than good.
One might argue that the policy should also discourage those who are
reckless with the facts or outright lying, by denying them protection.
But perhaps the risk of recklessness or lying is not a great concern.
Even the potential reckless or lying whistle-blower who feels he
would be protected from certain negative consequences such as loss of
job will still have a significant incentive to refrain from speaking,
since a policy of protection cannot shield the whistle-blower from all
negative social consequences, such as ostracism.
In short, the utilitarian argument for a policy encouraging
whistle-blowing would be that such a policy would alleviate certain
pressures that a person might feel to make the incorrect cost-benefit
analysis for society, while still leaving in place social restraints
on those who might want to blow the whistle when costs outweigh
benefits.
I hope that this is helpful.
- justaskscott-ga
Here are the web pages I considered in formulating this answer:
"Toward and Ethical Defense of Whistleblowing," by Kevin Hook, RN,
BSN, MA (Fall 2001)
Ethics & Human Rights Issues Update
The American Nurses Association
http://www.nursingworld.org/ethics/update/vol1no2a.htm#whistle
"What Is Whistle-Blowing," excerpted from entry by Geoff Hunt in
Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Academic Press, 1997
Freedom to Care
http://www.freedomtocare.org/page18.htm
"Chapter 10: Business Ethics," by Robert G. Kaptain
Business Ethics, University of International Business (BUS 2034),
Spring Semester 2002
In Steppe: The Volunteer Website for the Republic of Kazakhstan
http://www.insteppe.freenet.kz/library.files/ed.files/kaptain_business_ethics/week_7.htm
"Week 16: Whistleblowing," by Prof. Edward F. Gehringer
CSC 379: Ethics in Computing, Spring 2000
North Carolina State University
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/eos/users/e/efg/379/s00/course_locker/www/lectures/wk16/lecture.html
"Whistle Blowing - Two Key Questions," by Prof. Gordon G. Sollars
Business Ethics Forum (BUSI 1160), Spring 2002
Silberman College of Business Administration, Fairleigh Dickenson
University
http://alpha.fdu.edu/~sollars/lecture%20six6.htm
I used combinations of the following search terms on Google:
utilitarian
utilitarianism
"whistle-blowing"
whistleblowing
To view my utilitarian argument for discouraging whistle-blowing, see
https://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=35175 . |
,
0 Comments
)