According to DeGeorge, the Fords engineers had no obligation to involve in the design of the Pinto and the whistle blowing. Even though his argument stands, I would argue differently in support of the defined responsibilities of the engineers to design the Pinto and as well obligate the whistleblowing. Therefore, this research work focuses on establishing an understandable fact about the role of chief engineers in the case of the Pinto. As a research, I derive a strong objection to the argument of the DeGeorge for believing that the information is only essential for other senior officers to participate in the whistleblowing and not any other person.
DeGeorge argues that it was not the responsibility of the engineers (Philosophia, 2015). The …show more content…
Blowing a whistle is an ethical manner and not as presented by DeGeorge as an unethical way of communication (Lindblom, 2007). Basing my argument on the liberal politics of John Rawls, I can clearly attest of the workplace as just a portion of the society. Therefore, the workplace environment should also extract its operations from the Rawlsian theories of justice. According to the two theories, any communication should be in a manner that it possesses natural conceptualization and organization to develop critical reasoning without political biases. The information portrayed should give a free political speech along the duty of loyalty. In cases of political biases, then the workers will not be able to maintain the relevance of commitment to particular organizations, but will base their decisions on non-controversial views in regards to free speech. According to DeGeorge, the act whistleblowing is only justifiable if justifiable by the De Georgian criteria (Heumann, 2013). Nevertheless, the act of whistleblowing is not an extreme that need to follow a particular criteria. It comes with the situation at hand so long as the parties involved do not remain in a moral dilemma during and after the whistleblowing. The Rawlsian view remains more commanding with the setting of specific directions to operate within even at difficult situations when a swift response is …show more content…
The engineers being aware of the Pinto’s potential catastrophe created the need to blow the whistle regardless of the existence of the moral law. Even though DeGeorge sees this an objection of the obligation of other people, he has to remember the catastrophe that would have resulted from the ruptured gas tank of the car. Secondly, the flooding of the car in the market due to continuous denial by the Ford employees would lead to low profitability in the company posing a greater challenge. In short, going against the moral law of defined scheme of operation would not apply in this case and, therefore, whistleblowing acted as a better way to shun the illegality at Pinto contrary to the argument of non-obligation by
DeGeorge argues that it was not the responsibility of the engineers (Philosophia, 2015). The …show more content…
Blowing a whistle is an ethical manner and not as presented by DeGeorge as an unethical way of communication (Lindblom, 2007). Basing my argument on the liberal politics of John Rawls, I can clearly attest of the workplace as just a portion of the society. Therefore, the workplace environment should also extract its operations from the Rawlsian theories of justice. According to the two theories, any communication should be in a manner that it possesses natural conceptualization and organization to develop critical reasoning without political biases. The information portrayed should give a free political speech along the duty of loyalty. In cases of political biases, then the workers will not be able to maintain the relevance of commitment to particular organizations, but will base their decisions on non-controversial views in regards to free speech. According to DeGeorge, the act whistleblowing is only justifiable if justifiable by the De Georgian criteria (Heumann, 2013). Nevertheless, the act of whistleblowing is not an extreme that need to follow a particular criteria. It comes with the situation at hand so long as the parties involved do not remain in a moral dilemma during and after the whistleblowing. The Rawlsian view remains more commanding with the setting of specific directions to operate within even at difficult situations when a swift response is …show more content…
The engineers being aware of the Pinto’s potential catastrophe created the need to blow the whistle regardless of the existence of the moral law. Even though DeGeorge sees this an objection of the obligation of other people, he has to remember the catastrophe that would have resulted from the ruptured gas tank of the car. Secondly, the flooding of the car in the market due to continuous denial by the Ford employees would lead to low profitability in the company posing a greater challenge. In short, going against the moral law of defined scheme of operation would not apply in this case and, therefore, whistleblowing acted as a better way to shun the illegality at Pinto contrary to the argument of non-obligation by