Ethics in the Information Age                    Discussion project                           Whistleblowing

 Look at the five criteria for whistle-blowing on p. 429 and reproduced below.   Notice that DeGeorge says that when the first 3 are satisfied it is OK to blow the whistle, and when all 5 are satisfied one has an obligation (duty) to blow the whistle.

1.  How would these criteria apply to the Hughes Aircraft case described on pp. 425-6?  Was it OK (according to these criteria) for Goodearl and Ibarra to ‘blow the whistle’ on their employer by informing the Office of the Inspector General?  Did they have a duty to do so?
2. Would these guidelines be considered reasonable from a utilitarian point of view?  A Kantian point of view?
3. Discuss whether or not you think these are reasonable and appropriate criteria.
4. Consider whether you personally would be willing to do what these guidelines require.  (And, if not, why not.)

DeGeorge’s criteria (as boiled down by Quinn, slightly revised by me);

1.  Do you believe the problem may result in “serious and considerable harm to the public”?
2.  Have you told your manager your concerns about the potential harm?
3.  Have you tried every possible channel within your organization to resolve the problem?
4.  Do you have access to documented evidence that would persuade a neutral outsider that your view is correct?
5.  Are you reasonably sure that, if you do bring this matter to public attention (or to the attention of the relevant authorities), something will be done to prevent the anticipated harm?