A professional is sometimes required to make the difficult decision to whistle blow. On the surface, she is faced with the dilemma of choosing between public and corporate obligations. In depth, her problem is further compounded with personal responsibilities.
This paper addresses the extent to which a professional’s personal obligations should weigh into whistle blowing through a utilitarian perspective. A position is taken that personal interests are subordinate to public ones, but with exceptions, may supersede.
According to Mike Martin, the public perceives whistle blowing to be, in certain circumstances, mandatory, trumping personal interests. He argues against this expectation, claiming that a professional would assume an unfair burden in the absence of legal protection. Unfortunately, his claim is disputable.
In becoming a professional, one must adhere to a Code of Ethics which specifies high standards of practice. The Code represents a social contract between the professional and society: the initiate is granted professional status, prestige, and generous monetary benefits; in return, society expects specialized expertise, and fiduciary duty. Some codes contain provisions implying mandatory whistle blowing. The initiate has full understanding of these tradeoffs and consents to being bound despite having no legal protection. So at the outset, his conduct affirms the fairness of this contract, agreeing to prioritize public interests over personal ones.
Secondly, the public has the right to know about and the choice to take on product risks. It would be unfair for a professional to not disclose pertinent risks before and after a product is sold. Failing to disclose violates the principle of informed consent.
Thirdly, the professional is personally responsible to whistle blow due to his expertise. A leading drug researcher of a corporate team, for example, determines that a drug should be recalled. Unlike management, only he has the scientific background to evaluate the risks and determine the legitimacy of a recall. If management fails to listen, the professional must pick up the slack and warn authorities. Being a key player, the professional would be held causally and morally responsible should he fail to do so.
Although a professional may be fired, ostracized or blacklisted, there is no statistical evidence to show that these negative outcomes are any more likely than positive ones. Probability of these risks may differ by location, industry, and firm. Contrary to negative effects, results may be neutral or positive: Job positions may be safe; sympathetic coworkers may admire the courage to speak up; and better career opportunities may be found.
Whistle blowing may also not produce family burdens; instead, the act may be required to avoid burdens. Failure to whistle blow may result in persecution by the public and industry, resulting in bad reputation, job loss, family shame and guilty conscience. Whistle blowing, then, could prevent these negative outcomes. Counter intuitively, the act of whistle blowing fulfills, rather than goes against personal obligations.
In situations involving severe and foreseeable harm, whistle blowing is mandatory: An engineer discovers a design flaw in a fleet of planes and predicts operational casualties. Proper disclosure of dangers would begin by informing supervisors, and if needed, up the management chain. In a fair manner, adequate notice and time is given to rectify problems. If management is deliberately uncooperative, then government authorities should be contacted next. Other professionals with relevant expertise should be informed to provide an objective assessment. And lastly, the media would be notified as a final resort.
Utilitarianism identifies a loss of life as the ultimate cost which no benefit can offset. Certainly, only by whistle blowing can this loss be abated, bringing about the greatest benefit. In contrast, the costs of whistle blowing are uncertain. Good things can happen (better reputation or job opportunities) afterwards. Further, potential costs to whistle blowing can be remedied by various methods: if fired, the youthful professional can seek new jobs; she can also sue the company for discrimination. By whistle blowing, the greatest benefit over harm would result, requiring the subordination of personal obligations to public ones.
On the other hand, take the following: A scientist discovers that in high concentrations, a valuable drug causes minor congenital defects in mice; however, she isn’t certain that these side effects would be applicable to people. Moreover, the extent of harm is unknown and its occurrence unforeseeable. The scientist, therefore, wouldn’t be morally responsible. Utilitarianism would also prohibit whistle blowing: doing so damages company reputation unjustifiably while subjecting the professional to career risks-no benefits, but only harms could result. To avoid irrational whistle blowing, personal obligations are elevated above public ones.
In retrospect, the application of utilitarianism enables the professional to balance corporate and public interests fairly while producing the most beneficial decisions. Personal obligations, in hindsight, do not pose as a significant complication to the dilemma; instead, they are just an intrinsic aspect of the social contract.