Yahoo Resource Online - Best Essay Writing Service Reviews Reviews | Get Coupon Or Discount 2016
Free Essays All Companies All Writing Services

Yahoo Resource Online

Whistle-blowing then is justified when in the first place, the act of harming or destructing public interest is proven to be true and has actually happened. There must be some objective truth in the basis of this moral dilemma. Whistle-blowing as Last Resort Disclosing information internally that is not commonly known inside the company in order to prevent harm is not whistle-blowing. The hard question is when, if ever, should you go outside the company to shed light on some business practice that you believe is questionable? One should try to correct the practice inside the company first.

Take the matter “up the ladder,” in order to preserve confidentiality and to demonstrate loyalty to the company. Here are some other standards to consider. In other words, whistle-blowing is justified when it is already the last resort in dealing with the harm or that which is illegal and immoral. Since the primary intention is to uphold the public interest, that is, the greater good, dealing with it must means exhausting possibilities internally in order to stop the damage. Hence, bringing it in public and calling the attention of proper authorities must be the last resort there is, should all the others have exhausted.

What justify the act are both the sublime intention and the most logical efforts to rectify what is wrong and questionable. If you have exhausted those channels and the harmful practice persists, then and only then should you speak up externally and “blow the whistle” in order to correct the problem, and prevent harm to others. Whistle-blowing as a balanced conviction This is a more profound justification of the act of whistle-blowing. It is true that this can be considered as a moral predicament. The best way to deal with moral judgment is to strike a balance between objective and subjective truth in relation to the issue.

Objective truth refers to the straight facts, empirical data, and the like the account to the issue. The issue has to be something based on actual and straight facts. Subjective truth, on the other hand, refers to one’s personal value system, one’s sense of morality. If the damage is truly against what one believes to be something immoral based on personal reflections and conviction, a natural tendency to deal with this accordingly arises to man. This is an act of upholding the “good. ” Whistle-blowing then is justified if the act is done based on balanced personal conviction.

This conviction is balance because it is based both on objective and subjective truth. Focusing on what is only objective may serve the intention of the act. Also, focusing on the subjective may also cause even greater damage of public interest. It is justifies, therefore, is it is balanced. Conclusion Whistle-blowing is both a right of an individual and a responsibility place upon his shoulders. It is a right because aside from legal privileges and provisions, nothing should stop an individual in upholding what is the truth, what is the good, and what will stop harm to public interest.

It is also a responsibility because doing the act is not just any blind action. It requires serious moral dilemma and judgment that one has to respond to. Responding to it means considering a number of points from the definition to reflection. Yes, it is justified. But its justifiability is limited to some circumstances and principles. First, it has to serve the public interest. Second, it has to be based on straight facts. Third, it has been the last resort. And finally, it has to be grounded on a balanced conviction between objective and subjective truth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Electronic reference formats recommended by Yahoo Resource Online. (2000, October 12). Retrieved December 3, 2001 from http://www. arts. uwaterloo. ca/~gboychuk/psci331/nov26_files/v3_document. htm Electronic reference formats recommended by Yahoo Resource Online. (1998, May 4). Retrieved December 3, 2001 from http://whistleblowing. org/ Harris, P. (1997). Organization Disobedience. New York: Franklin Watts. Learning to Love Whistle-blowers. (2006, March). Inc Magazine, pp. 34. Davey, Brian (1999). Whistle Blowing – the psycho-dynamics of conflict. (Electronic Version). Sharelynx Articles, 10-16.

Sample Essay of PaperHelp