In the corporate world, whistleblowing is one of the hardest things that employees are expected to do when a company is doing wrong. Whistleblowers must decide whether to stay loyal to the company who has taken care of them or to present the truth to the public. There are some conditions to being a whistleblower, one must make sure that the accusations are true, backed by concrete evidence, unbiased and for the better of the public. Some say choosing to whistle blow is a violation of the loyalty that was given to the employee. Whistleblowing is like biting the hand that feeds you, but the public must be careful concerning whistleblowers accusations because some could just be seeking fame and fortune or to get their own personal bias of
…show more content…
Lamar defines whistleblowing as “ . . . the act of complaining, either within the cooperation of publicly, about a corporation 's unethical practices” ( Larmer 184). Whistleblowing puts the responsibility of reporting anything fishy or morally wrong upon the companies employees. True accusations must be made against an individual or a company, otherwise, the whistleblower 's testimony is rendered useless. Companies put the pressure of the whistleblowing on the employees, so in a sense they expect them to do the dirty work and expose the company when necessary. Therefore there is no violation between the employee and loyalty to the company, “ . . . there can be no issue of whistleblowing and employee loyalty since the employee has no duty to be loyal to his employer.” (Lamer 184). Generally, whistleblowers choose to expose his/her company to the public because it is in the public’s best interest. An example of this would the case study of the 1971 Ford Pinto, there was an issue with the car that when it was involved in a car wreck it would explode. The engineers who designed and were working on the project felt morally obligated to warn the public of the malfunctioning in the cars so that they could save lives instead of allowing their company to produce cars with a major malfunction in them. Now these engineers were considering the utilitarianism perspective of their actions, they stood up for the community no matter how terrible the consequences …show more content…
Now I feel as if there are many aspects of this argument that you can argue, there is no black and white answer. I honestly thought that my paper was a lot worse than it actually was. I thought this because with the first paper I actually had written a paper about it in high school, whereas here I have never even heard of this argument before. I also did not realize how truth vs. loyalty is present in our day to day lives. I was surprised to actually see my first draft was better than I first. I was glad to see an improvement from my draft of the first paper to this one. I defiantly think that my ability to write has improved along with noticing the need to have my opinion based on professional evidence. Overall, I am very pleased to see
Lamar defines whistleblowing as “ . . . the act of complaining, either within the cooperation of publicly, about a corporation 's unethical practices” ( Larmer 184). Whistleblowing puts the responsibility of reporting anything fishy or morally wrong upon the companies employees. True accusations must be made against an individual or a company, otherwise, the whistleblower 's testimony is rendered useless. Companies put the pressure of the whistleblowing on the employees, so in a sense they expect them to do the dirty work and expose the company when necessary. Therefore there is no violation between the employee and loyalty to the company, “ . . . there can be no issue of whistleblowing and employee loyalty since the employee has no duty to be loyal to his employer.” (Lamer 184). Generally, whistleblowers choose to expose his/her company to the public because it is in the public’s best interest. An example of this would the case study of the 1971 Ford Pinto, there was an issue with the car that when it was involved in a car wreck it would explode. The engineers who designed and were working on the project felt morally obligated to warn the public of the malfunctioning in the cars so that they could save lives instead of allowing their company to produce cars with a major malfunction in them. Now these engineers were considering the utilitarianism perspective of their actions, they stood up for the community no matter how terrible the consequences …show more content…
Now I feel as if there are many aspects of this argument that you can argue, there is no black and white answer. I honestly thought that my paper was a lot worse than it actually was. I thought this because with the first paper I actually had written a paper about it in high school, whereas here I have never even heard of this argument before. I also did not realize how truth vs. loyalty is present in our day to day lives. I was surprised to actually see my first draft was better than I first. I was glad to see an improvement from my draft of the first paper to this one. I defiantly think that my ability to write has improved along with noticing the need to have my opinion based on professional evidence. Overall, I am very pleased to see