Please explain it from a business view point, ethics or moral view point.

This answer will be shorter than my answer to the question on
encouraging whistle-blowing, since I can just refer you to the first
two paragraphs as the basis for this discussion, as well as to the web
sites I considered and search terms I used, which are the same for
both answers.

In contrast to the previous answer, I will argue here that a policy of
discouraging whistle-blowing would do more good than harm.  To put it
another way, I must argue that whistle-blowing in general does more
harm than good.

Now, as implied by my previous answer, this argument is fairly easy to
make with respect to whistle-blowers who lie or are reckless to the
truth.  Those who lie or are reckless with truth are not blowing the
whistle in order to correct harmful conduct, and thus are presumably
acting to pursue their own utility rather than that of everyone.  (Of
course, some such people might end up increasing the happiness of the
world by lying or saying reckless things that succeed in harming an
organization that is generally harmful to others, even if not harmful
in this instance.  But I presume that this situation would happen too
infrequently for a policy-maker to base a policy upon it.)

But what about people who reasonably (and even firmly) believe that
they are acting to stop harm, and therefore believe that they are
acting to promote happiness?

I believe that the best utilitarian argument for a policy that might
discourage even these "do-gooders" would be that people in general,
and people who feel the need to blow a whistle in particular, tend to
overvalue the benefits of whistle-blowing to others and undervalue the
costs to others.  In other words, people might jump to the conclusion
that they should blow the whistle, even if they haven’t assembled all
the facts, gone through the available internal channels, or fully
considered all of the consequences of the whistle-blowing.  They might
intend to maximize utility, but through lack of prudence,
consideration, or information, might reduce it.  For example, they
might intend to save lives by exposing a business’s harmful practice,
but by doing so may undermine an organization that would likely have
saved many more lives in the future.

In the end, the choice between the utilitarian arguments for
discouragement and encouragement of whistle-blowing comes down to your
views of how individuals generally calculate utility for themselves
and others.  The argument for discouragement is based on the premise
that people generally don’t know what’s best for others.

- justaskscott-ga


To view my utilitarian argument for encouraging whistle-blowing, see
https://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=35174 .

In am sorry that it took so long I have been sick and this is the
first time back on the computer. GREAT JOB