Whistle Blowing, The Consequences Of Whistleblowing

Each day an individual will make a decision that will affect their life in some way. Should I wear the green shirt or the yellow shirt? Should I order a shake or lemonade? Should I wash the car today or wait until tomorrow? These simple decisions often happen without serious thought. Why? Because these decisions are not life changing ones. But what happens when the decision is not so easy to make, when it’s life changing. Sometimes a person’s conscious greatly affects one’s decision making, especially when the topic of whistle blowing arises. In this paper, I will discuss and analyze whistle-blowing, where it occurs, the effects of whistle-blowing, the consequences of whistle-blowing, and finally I close my paper with a conclusion. Understood correctly whistle-blowing is defined as an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization. (1) Whistle-blowing is not about informing in the negative but raises concern about misconduct within an organization. More so, it can also be

It could be true that a company is harming a company. Duska argued that organizations cannot rely on loyalty. People do not have obligations of loyalty to companies. Prima facie states that everything is based on the first impression until proven different. (1) Therefore, the loyalty companies are not always viewed as objects of loyalty. Whistleblowing doesn’t need moral justification. Duska compares the idea of loyalty to a company setting barriers and negative attitudes toward the whistleblower. Whistle blowing can cause conflicts with obligations to the employer, and not to reveal confidential information. I think his argument supports the people that whistle blow and their actions are mislabeled, therefore, they are being loyal to their community. Moral justification of right or wrong is hindered by the small amount of loyalty to the