Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill essay on utilitarianism
John stuart mill essay on utilitarianism
John stuart mill essay on utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John stuart mill essay on utilitarianism
Whistle blowing is the act of reporting a business or organization that is doing something that would potentially harm the public. People expect organizations to do ethical practices and should have public safety at the center of all of its practices and concerns. These practices include making products. These products that are made for the public and should be one-hundred percent safe to use. The problem of whistle blowing is that some people think that whistle blowers should be protected by the law. Others think that whistle blowers should not be protected by the law. Ethical theories can be guidelines to help people understand if the act of whistle blowing should be done or not.
Two different journal articles question the act of whistle blowing as a whole. In today's society, whistle blowers can face extreme public. This happens because they tell the public of the harm an organization is doing. They can also be blacklisted by their employer and can be out of work for several months or years if the act of whistle blowing is committed. The first journal titled, "Internal" Business Practices?: The Limits of Whistleblower Protection for Employees Who Oppose or Expose Fraud in the Private Sector, by David Aron talks about the limitations that whistle blowers face. He argues that whistle blowers should be protected by the law because public safety should be at the forefront of all business organizations. John Stuart Mill utilitarianism offers the best idea that agrees with what the author is saying within this journal entry. John Stuart Mill utilitarianism offers the best because whistle blowers can bring the greatest number for the greatest good by protecting the public from potential harm. This also could also be a good t...
... middle of paper ...
...e protection under the law or not. Looking at each argument present. the most valid point would have the be the Mill utilitarian point of view. This one makes the most sense because people should let the public know of harm if it brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people. People should also have protection under the law, because they should not have to worry about any repercussions
The act of being a whistle blower will always have repercussions. Both articles make valid points on whether or not they should be protected under the law. Three different ethical theories were presented and argue the points that they would make. It was decided that the Mill utilitarian point of view made the most sense. It makes sense to ensure the whistle blowers have protection under the law because the public has the right to be protected from potential harm.
Hughes Microelectronics is a company that were found to have unethical practices during the 1980’s when handling government contracts. This was brought to light by two whistleblowers that worked for the company at the time. The purpose of this is to review four main questions concerning the situation and how it was handled ethically by the whistleblower. The first and second parts will be fairly similar what were the responsibilities of the company itself, what were the responsibilities of the main whistleblower Margaret Goodearl. Next, the conflict between the two parties will be examined and also whether or not the situation was handled ethically. Lastly the question of whether or not whistleblowing is the most ethical solution
First I will be telling you about the pressure of being a “whistleblower”. In Fahrenheit 451 the pressure of being a “whistleblower” is so real, everyone is told to rat out everyone who has a book in their household, if they find out they have a book in the home it is burned to the ground. This is related to our society because we are pressured to do what is right, and part of my belief system is to do what is right and to point out what is wrong. For example if someone were to gossip behind their back I would try to stand up and tell them it is wrong and tell the person what the others said
The theories of utilitarianism which is a branch of consequentialism and deontology both focus on what makes an act right, or in this case a controversial policy justifiable. However, there are intrinsic differences to both in term of what the meaning of morality and their ultimate goal. Utilitarianism is more concerned with the maximum benefit that can be achieved for everyone. (Cohen & Grace 14) While, Deontology is concerned with balancing the need to be both legally in the right and morally in the right. (Cohen & Grace 16) In followi...
Bouville (2008) describes whistleblowing as an act for an employee of revealing what he believes to be unethical or described as an illegal behaviour to a higher management (internal whistleblowing) or to an external authority or the public (external whistleblowing). Whistle-blowers are often seen as traitors to an organisation as they are considered to have violated the loyalty terms of that organisation while some are described as heroes that defend the values and ethics of humanity rather than loyalty to their company. In the medical community, it is the duty of a practitioner aware of patient care being threatened to make it known to those in charge and for those in charge to address the issues and act on it. The General Medical Council (GMC) stipulated this act of raising concern as a doctor’s duty in its Good medical practice guide. This paper will be based on the analysis of the experience of whistle blowers, reasons why they chose or chose not to take such actions and personal opinions on whistleblowing in the medical community.
Whistle blowing is a controversial topic in the professional industry. Whistle blowing is the act of speaking out against a fellow colleague or even a friend that has done something non-ethical or illegal in the workplace. A whistleblower raises concerns about the wrongdoing inside of the workplace. Employees hesitate to become a whistleblower because of the idea of becoming a snitch on fellow employees and having a bad rep around the office. This concern was lowered in 1989 with a law called the Whistleblower Protection Act that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring at a government organization (whistleblowers.gov).
The term Whistleblower means “An employee who discloses information that s/he reasonably believes is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mismanagement, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. When information is classified or otherwise restricted by Congress or Executive Order, disclosures only are protected as whistleblowing if made through designated, secure channels. (What is a Whistleblower?)” The idea behind whistleblowers is that they believe trying to inform the public of illegal acts within their businesses has the potential to protect the public from wrongdoing. The following studies analyze scholar’s findings on different factors related to whistle blowing as
“Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage” (Confucius Quotes, 2012). The person who does her duty, at great risk to her own interest, when most others would defy from fear is considered a hero (Schafer, 2004). Dr. Nancy Olivieri is a hero who blew the whistle on Apotex, University of Toronto (U of T) and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC); and fought for her academic rights till the end. Whistle-blowing refers to actions of an employee that breach her loyalty to the organization but serves the public interest. When other constraints proved to be ineffective, whistle-blowing acts as a check on authority of the organization. Whistle-blowers expose severe forms of corruption, waste, and abuse of power within their organization and put the organization in a position where it is answerable to the public, thus enhancing its accountability (Cooper, 2006, pg. 198-205).
With the emergence of unethical practices found in international corporations, whistleblowing has been more and more common. A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information that is deemed illegal, immoral, or dishonest. In SNC-Lavalin, the whistleblower was justified. In this case, the senior executives were paying bribes and taking money from mega projects won under the Gadhafi regime (Wikipedia, 2015, n.p). There are several issues in this case.
On November 29th, Mary Inman gave us a talk on the topic whistleblowing, which let me know more about the whistleblower activities and the whistleblower protection. According to the definition given by the website whistleblowers international, whistleblowing is someone who reveal the unethical or illegal activities within the company. The person can be current or past employee, or an outside individual who is familiar with the unethical activity. This whistleblower does not need to be U.S. citizen.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort.
One example of where the good of society is favored over the good of the individual is in the case of motorcycle helmet laws. The federal government put pressure on the states in the 1970’s to make motorcyclists wear helmets (Jones & Bayer, 2007). Motorcyclists asserted that these statutes infringed upon their rights to ride their motorcycles as they wished and was unfair because any potential harm would be borne only by the motorcyclists themselves (Bayer, 2007). Nevertheless, rarely were the statutes overturned in court system (Bayern, 2007). Furthermore, a court in Massachusetts stated that a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet who is injured in a wreck becomes the burden of the rest of society who must contribute to his or her medical
...ave to be willing to protect all people. Everybody counts. Really, the future of a society is greatly at stake when the generations that are to keep the society prosperous are not being protected fairly by their justice system. Therefore, option one, which is ultimately the decision taken by the Supreme Court in US vs. Knox, is the most ethical and stands as the right decision.
public servants. For some, this action is perceived positively because it promotes the public good
Morality is the biggest and best reason for this act because people generally want to do the good moral thing. If a person should have to blow the whistle on a company they should know that for every action there is a reaction, and the reaction of whistle blowing might lead to getting fired. One of the most controversial types of whistle blowing is that of impersonal. If a company is making products that are unsafe because they are trying to save a few dollars, an employee could see this as immoral and tell the public about it. The whistle blower would do this based on Kant's theory. It would be following the moral law to do so. If a company is cutting corners and hurting others, it would be morally unacceptable not to blow the whistle on this company. To knowingly let innocent people get hurt because of something that you could have stopped is morally wrong. A lot of people would blow the whistle on a company that is making unsafe products, but not all. A number of people would not inform the public of the company's wrongdoings. They would not do it out of fear that they might loose there job or even be blacklisted from the industry altogether. If they are not fired they will most likely be outcasts at their job and looked over at promotion time.