Search results
Jun 23, 2023 · If citizens can come forward in confidence – knowing they will be heard and are safe from retaliation – they can help hold power to account for the common good. The following stories showcase the impact of 12 inspiring whistleblowers, in varying circumstances, speaking up to safeguard the public interest.
- Agriculture. The food that we consume is the result of agriculture. We, humans, and animals depend on the agricultural products for sustaining ourselves.
- Food & Drinks. What keeps us alive is the food that we consume. Without food, the viability of life is not feasible. Our food items come from plants and animals.
- Health & Medicine. Whenever we get sick, we consult a doctor. The doctor gives us medicines, and we are all good to go. How has this been made possible?
- Clothing. Be it heat scorching summers or spine-chilling winters; it is the biology which keeps you safe. You wear breathable cotton clothes in summers which are obtained from plants.
- Overview
- Justification
- Obligation
- Legal protections
whistleblower, an individual who, without authorization, reveals private or classified information about an organization, usually related to wrongdoing or misconduct. Whistleblowers generally state that such actions are motivated by a commitment to the public interest. The whistleblowing of Edward Snowden and Karen Silkwood are prime examples. Although the term was first used to refer to public servants who made known governmental mismanagement, waste, or corruption, it now covers the activity of any employee or officer of a public or private organization who alerts a wider group, often via the Internet and anonymous networks such as Tor, to setbacks to their health and interests as a result of waste, corruption, fraud, or profit seeking.
The typical background to whistleblowing is an understanding promulgated by organizations that those whom they employ are beneficiaries of an association to which they owe some measure of loyalty. Included in that measure is an expectation that employees will not jeopardize the interests of the organization by revealing certain kinds of information to people outside the organization. Furthermore, if members are unhappy about something the organization does, they will make it known only to the appropriate people within the organization. What has generated the need for a more neutral characterization of those who go outside the organization has been a recognition that internal mechanisms often fail to deal adequately with organization failures and that because the interests jeopardized by those failures are wider than those of the organization, the public has a right to know.
Whistleblowing often causes significant disruption within an organization. In one way or another, the organization is likely to lose control of its affairs as it is subjected to external inquiries and constraints. Indeed, it may find itself crippled, and many within it who are little more than innocent bystanders may also suffer. Whistleblowing, therefore, can be more easily condoned if several conditions are satisfied. First, the disruption likely to be caused by blowing the whistle can be justified only if other avenues of protest have proved ineffective. Sometimes, of course, the risks confronting whistleblowers may make less-extreme forms of reporting impracticable or dangerous. Although whistleblowers may be expected to demonstrate good faith, their martyrdom cannot be demanded. Second, whistleblowers must have good reasons for believing that their organizations are perpetrating the wrongs of which they are accused. Whistleblowers need evidence that will withstand public scrutiny. Third, the potential whistleblower needs to consider the seriousness of the detrimental behaviour. Finally, whistleblowing should accomplish some public good; otherwise, the damage it causes will likely outweigh any other value it may have.
Although it might be argued that any member of an organization who becomes aware of wrongdoing has an obligation to take some action, it is also true that the burden falls more heavily on some than on others. Certainly those in a supervisory capacity have a greater responsibility for the legitimacy of organizational behaviour than do their subordinates, especially those who are not privy to the context within which the organization’s acts may be understood. Although it is not necessary that whistleblowers be motivated by a concern for the public interest, whistleblowers are unlikely to be seen as having acted commendably unless they are so motivated. Whistleblowing—even when justified by circumstances—may nevertheless be motivated by revenge, the desire for promotion or ingratiation, self-protection, or penance, and it is common for those against whom the whistle is blown to attempt to undermine whistleblowers’ credibility. Although beside the point, such attacks may cast doubt on the credibility of whistleblowers without addressing the substance of their claims. The point, then, is not that the morally compromised are exempt from blowing the whistle but rather that they may not garner moral praise for doing so, and doubt may be cast on their credibility.
That whistleblowing can sometimes be justified does not imply either a moral or a legal obligation to act. For one thing, failure to go public is an act of omission rather than of commission, and there is considerable philosophical debate about the moral imperative to act in order to prevent harm. Even if it is thought morally obligatory to do so, it is only in rare instances that the law requires an individual to act to prevent harm. Finally, given that whistleblowers may be made to suffer dearly, it might be too burdensome to require potential whistleblowers to act against their own interests.
Exclusive academic rate for students! Save 67% on Britannica Premium.
Learn More
The potential costs of whistleblowing have sometimes generated a debate over the merits of anonymous whistleblowing. Although anonymous whistleblowers may be secure against retaliation, the door may thereby be opened to whistleblowing that is motivated by revenge, rivalry, or some other unworthy motive; furthermore, anonymous whistleblowers may be free to make frivolous or careless charges against what are interpreted as setbacks to the public interest—without accountability.
Because whistleblowers are possible victims of retaliatory behaviour, many jurisdictions have enacted whistleblower-protection acts. Such acts, however, have generally provided inadequate protection, because retaliatory behaviour may be successfully disguised as something else, and even justifiable criticism of the employee may be seen as retaliato...
- John Kleinig
Nov 3, 2016 · Whistleblower defined and explained with examples. Whistleblower is someone who informs on another's wrongdoing, or who publicly discloses corruption.
What are emergent properties? Give two examples. An emergent property is a property that a complex system has, but the individual members do not have this property. Example: Bikes have transportation while wheels and rubber seats don't. Salt has taste while sodium is highly reactive & Chlorine gas is toxic. Life is organized on many skills.
6 days ago · To explore whistleblowing and its benefits, let’s look at a few examples of whistleblowing in the workplace and how they were dealt with. Swedish telecoms operator Telia developed its own internal whistleblowing reporting system, the Speak-Up line, in 2014.
What is meant by interdependence? Describe an example of a way that you depend on other living things. Compare and contrast symbiosis and competition. Give three examples of resources organisms may compete for.
