Whistleblowing: a critical philosophical analysis of the component moral decisions of the act and some new perspectives on its moral significance

Abstract

Professors International GuildDiscussions of whistleblowing whether in academic literature or in more popular media have tended to very one-sided assessments of the moral worth of the act. Indeed, much of the current literature concentrates on psychological or managerial aspects of whistleblowing while taking for granted this or that moral position or eschewing any normative commitment on the question. The purpose of this article is firstly to reemphasise the importance and complexity of the normative foundations of whistleblowing acts; and secondly, through a moral philosophical analysis of the component decisions that make up any act of whistleblowing, to contribute to a more balanced and less polarised treatment of the topic. It is argued that the polarisation of views on the topic is in part due to a failure to decompose the act of whistleblowing into a number of inevitable component moral decisions leading up to the act. It is furthermore argued on the basis of the analysis that it is impossible to state a priori as a matter of general principle that whistleblowing is always morally right (a good act) or morally wrong (a bad act). The article will close with a reflection on the degree to which the weighing up of good and bad in the act of whistleblowing differs sharply among cultures; and with a conjecture as to a possible relation to a people's history which may serve as a pointer to interesting future empirical research on the topic.

The motivations of external whistleblowers and their impact on the intention to blow the whistle again

“…Morality can be defined as an internally held belief in moral values that enables one to perceive differences between right and wrong, good and bad, and true and false (Maroun & Atkins, ; O'Sullivan & Ngau, ). Whistleblowing is specifically grounded in moral obligation and judgment, conscience or social justice, personal integrity, professional responsibility and ethics, and courage, thus occurring not in a routine and repetitive manner, but rather, in an exceptional manner (Alleyne, Hudaib, & Pike, ; Lindblom, ; O'Sullivan & Ngau, ; Shawver, Clements, & Sennetti, ; Vinten, ; Watts & Buckley, ). Numerous researchers (e.g., Cailleba & Petit, ; Maroun & Atkins, ; Maroun & Solomon, ; Nayır, Rehg, & Asa, ; O'Sullivan & Ngau, ; Shawver & Shawver, ; Watts & Buckley, ) assume, at least implicitly, that whistleblowing is mostly motivated by morality.…”

“…Whistleblowing is specifically grounded in moral obligation and judgment, conscience or social justice, personal integrity, professional responsibility and ethics, and courage, thus occurring not in a routine and repetitive manner, but rather, in an exceptional manner (Alleyne, Hudaib, & Pike, ; Lindblom, ; O'Sullivan & Ngau, ; Shawver, Clements, & Sennetti, ; Vinten, ; Watts & Buckley, ). Numerous researchers (e.g., Cailleba & Petit, ; Maroun & Atkins, ; Maroun & Solomon, ; Nayır, Rehg, & Asa, ; O'Sullivan & Ngau, ; Shawver & Shawver, ; Watts & Buckley, ) assume, at least implicitly, that whistleblowing is mostly motivated by morality. Morality has been addressed in whistleblowing literature in various ways such as: moral dilemma (Lindblom, ); the dual process of moral intuition or deliberative reasoning in which whistleblowing takes place (Watts & Buckley, ); philosophical aspects of decision‐making (O'Sullivan & Ngau, ); the impact of moral intensity and judgments on whistleblowing intentions (Shawver et al, ); and an accountability perspective (Williams & Adams, ).…”

“…Numerous researchers (e.g., Cailleba & Petit, ; Maroun & Atkins, ; Maroun & Solomon, ; Nayır, Rehg, & Asa, ; O'Sullivan & Ngau, ; Shawver & Shawver, ; Watts & Buckley, ) assume, at least implicitly, that whistleblowing is mostly motivated by morality. Morality has been addressed in whistleblowing literature in various ways such as: moral dilemma (Lindblom, ); the dual process of moral intuition or deliberative reasoning in which whistleblowing takes place (Watts & Buckley, ); philosophical aspects of decision‐making (O'Sullivan & Ngau, ); the impact of moral intensity and judgments on whistleblowing intentions (Shawver et al, ); and an accountability perspective (Williams & Adams, ).…”

“…Based on a review of the literature on whistleblowing, we distilled the key descriptors or attributes of morality, cost‐benefit, and emotion. For example, the indicators of morality came up from previous studies where the moral motivation for whistleblowing has been represented by the messengers of the truth (Bouville, ), a moral sense of right or wrong (Alleyne et al, ; Maroun & Atkins, ; O'Sullivan & Ngau, ), courage and self‐sacrifice (Grant, ; Rost, ), honor and recognition as heroes or saints (Bouville, ), and moral decision of good or bad (O'Sullivan & Ngau, ). We identified the indicators of cost‐benefit analysis from Miceli et al (), Heyes and Kapur (), and Henik () in the same way.…”

“… Cf. O'Sullivan and Ngau (), Maroun and Atkins (), Alleyne et al (), Bouville (), Rost (), and Grant () for morality; Miceli et al (), Heyes and Kapur (), and Henik () for cost‐benefit analysis; and Park and Lewis (), Hollings (), Peters et al (), Gundlach et al (), and Henik () for emotion. …”