Frederick Douglass's Whistleblowing Case

Douglas’s friend has a moral obligation to blow the whistle on the company due to his moral obligation. Since the defect in the product is hurting children and they know how to fix the product yet the company will not fix it till the government forces the company to, Douglas’s friend should blow the whistle. Douglas’s friend should consider the impact of whistleblowing will have on his life, it will also effect his family. Douglas’s friend’s family obligations are morally relevant because he has a moral obligation to take care of his family and provide for his family. If Douglas’s friend is fired he will not be able to ensure his duties as a father and provide for his family any more. He should “weigh” out his options based on the moral theory Utilitarianism and see which decision causes the greatest happiness. …show more content…
He is obligated to his company he works for to stand by the final decisions his company makes, even if he does not agree with these decisions. His duty of loyalty when “weighed” against the public is more important. It is more important because when he decided to work at this company he decided to put his obligations for this company before any other obligations he had. Also in this case Douglas’s friend brought the defect to the company’s attention but they refused to do anything till the government steps in. Douglas’s friend did all that he can do for his moral obligations, now he has to follow his obligations for his company. Blowing the whistle would undermine teamwork virtues because he has a loyalty and respect for his collegiality and authority and going behind there back and blowing the whistle would destroy his reputation for being a loyal and respectful team member. Whistle blowing will undermine his virtue of self-direction because he will no longer be able to work as an engineer due to his reputation being