Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing

Abstract

The standard theory is not about whistleblowing, as such, but about justified whistleblowing–and rightly so. Whistleblowing always involves revealing information that would not ordinarily be revealed. But there is nothing morally problematic about that; after all, revealing information not ordinarily revealed is one function of science. Whistleblowing always involves, in addition, an actual intention to prevent something bad that would otherwise occur. The standard theory is not a definition of whistleblowing or even of justified whistleblowing. The theory purports to state sufficient conditions, not necessary conditions. Falsification of the record is, of course, in a sense, especially a record as historically important as that which the Rogers Commission was to produce. But falsification is only in a sense that almost empties harm of its distinctive meaning, leaving it more or less equivalent to moral wrong. The standard theory has trouble making good on its claim to explain how whistleblowing can be morally permissible without being morally required.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.