“IS “WHISTLEBLOWING” MORALLY PERMISSIBLE?”

Morals havealways been one of the main values of human’s society. The observance of

generally accepted principles of morals concerned the conscience of each person

in particular. However, sometimes people face disputable questions, both in

history and in their own lifes.Whistleblowing is one of them. Community

regarded whistleblowing as actual treachery, yet now understanding of this term

has changed. Eventually, in XXIst century many people treat whistleblowers as

national heroes and as the only ones whose acts are morally right.  Nevertheless, to speak about whistleblowingand its sides, we should clearly see what it is in fact. In the following

context will be given the definition of the notion, veridical daily and

world-known examples of the concept, two sides of whistleblowing based on cited

examples: affirmative and negative, author’s point of view and the logical

inference.

As“Investopedia” (2015) argues, ‘‘whistleblower’ -anyone who has and reports

insider knowledge of illegal activities occurring in an organization. It can be

employees, suppliers, contractors, clients or any individual who somehow

becomes aware of illegal activities taking place in a business either through

witnessing the behavior or being told about it’. Certainly, to grasp exactly

what does the term ‘whistleblowing’ hold, we have to delve deeper. The term

appeared not long time ago, but the cases of ‘whistleblowing’ used to happen

quite often even before Christ. First whistleblowers may be regarded as historically

famous traitors, for instance Judas. Now, the Kiss of Judas is a well-known

synonym for the definition of the word “betrayer”. It also symbolizes the act “appearing

to be an act of friendship, which is in fact harmful to the recipient”, which

sounds common to the modern meaning of the word ‘whistleblowing’. Brutus’

perfidy may be related to such behavior. Caesar assigned him to be his senator

as he relied on Brutus; unfortunately, he joined the conspiracy against

dictator. He supplied Caesar’s enemies with all vital information, what

finished with Caesar’s murder. In ancient Rome, there also even used to be post

boxes in a lion shape, especially for getting anonymous letters from

whistleblowers concerning nonpayment of the taxes. At the far later time, in

the beginning of twentieth, Yevno Azef, a socialist revolutionary sought fame

for being a double agent. He has been working for the government as a spy, and

has been preparing terrorist acts simultaneously. Yevno Azef furnished

supporters of the revolution with confidential information received from the

authorities. Finally, he had to escape to Germany, where he was caught by

police and delivered to prison.

These threeexamples are showing the negative side of ‘whistleblowing’, what was spread in

those times. If we connect similar actions in the past to present, we may get

the evolutional process of ‘whistleblowing’ phenomena. In reality, it has never

actually been a phenomenon, but an obvious matter. For some simple example,

school. There is always one person in a class who whistleblows, telling the teacher

who from his classmates cheats, who extends gossips, etc. Noticeable historical

illustrations and memorable daily stories of ‘whistleblowing’ have lead us to an

accurate perception of the given concept. Even though, scholastic cases are

slightly comparable to ones that happen in politics and business. Whistleblowing

is largely common in big financial business-companies. Investors, obviously,

want to find out about every pitfall related to their future contributions and

often pay huge sums of money for vital secret data. Sometimes workers might

take risks and provide false information just to get money. This happens

because egoism is laid in human’s nature and people mostly care about their own

interest and avails. Contrariwise, authority’s move composes of making a

whistleblower to think that his behavior is right and the delations are good

for company. In such way, an employee who accumulate information share it with

great joy. Employers occupying high positions are creating the motivations for

whistleblowers. It often belongs to special bonuses, as the additional payments

to the salary. For the maintenance of discipline, for the stories of observing

the behavior of colleagues for the head, employee’s salary may be raised in

times. Collectors of data affirm that if there is a gossip, it was a real

reason for it. They are ready to interrogate every college of the gossip hero

in order to get to the roots. This job is very dodgy and people who pay

attention on it are quite rational. They do know that the main thing is to use

such information wisely. In each of the individual cases of complaints

department conducts thorough investigation. A recent discovery was the

existence of risk-managers- specially hired staff, which is responsible for the

settlement of intercompany conflicts. Only large corporations practice such

staff, mostly firms prefer just to have an ad hoc e-mail address. The root of

evil in all of the stories with complaints is that people are not ready to talk

directly to each other. They are used to hide their faces and anonymously write

the offensive reports about their colleagues and employers, instead of trying

to solve the problem with an immediate direct contact. Risk-managers are

complaining they would never apply for a job in a company, where whistleblowing

is encouraged. For them there are too much dirt and unfounded accusations in

similar organizational systems. It turns out, that the one who whistleblows

first is right. People begin to play a race; that distracts them from the

actual activities. However, the advance of successful companies is in friendly

confidence atmosphere. The literate bosses understand that it is better have a

good relationship with an employee, than to make him work in fear and hatred.  For instance, “Google” provides anopportunity for the worker to create his own dream-office. That’s why many

people eager to work there, as “Google” gives the space for imagination usage. Returning

to the topic of whistleblowers can be said that from the positive side people

are denouncing to improve the work quality and the system’s organization.

In 2013scandalous non-profit organization “WikiLeaks” has published incriminating

evidence apropos global surveillance conducted by CIA and NSA. Tones of hidden

data were rebuked. The name “Edward Snowden” was on everyone’s lips. With the

help of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, Snowden opened public's eyes to the

reality of work of special services. “As a former employee of System Administration,

he downloaded 1.7 billion of secret files”, announces in the enclosed report

Pentagon. Society is still discussing huge conflict and its consequences. Thus,

when awful truth came out, one of the most famous whistleblowers in history

found himself in a contradictory situation. Snowden helped society, thereby

incurred anger of authorities. With this in mind, comes the question of

morality: was what he did absolutely right or absolutely wrong? There are norms

and rules of behavior, requiring a man to minister the society. The main task

of the man is to make himself useful for another, starting with neighbors,

ending with the city or country, with the help of his activities. Here

Snowden’s deed played a favorable role for citizens, and harmful enough for the

governments. However, serving the public good to make everyone happy might

sound unrealistic, because there are always disaffected ones in society. For

some reasons, government used to hide vital information from the world, and

probably it was better not to figure it out ever.  From the regulatory moral point of view,Edward Snowden has violated his work codex, giving the national secrets away

and stealing data right under government’s nose. He behaved incorrectly

concerning the state.

On theother hand, relying on the basic functions of morality, Snowden’s act contains

absolute moral permissibility. Without his whistleblowing, the society would

never have any proofs of the facts of total wiretapping and substantial

aggressive actions of American military in combat situations. His humanistic

potential was so great that he could not help trying to stop unfair actions, or

at least warn the people. In terms of estimator, Snowden has chosen the

position of justice. To emphasize, former system administrator jeopardized his

career, family and his life. Morality impart the color of the correct social

orientation through moral ideals and objectives, providing a harmonious

combination of personal and public interests. As can be seen, educational

function also presented in Snowden’s movement. The deed characterizes Snowden

as a person with established spiritual personality. When he looked at everything

from the outside, he came up with the conclusion that what he was doing had

been harming society more than helping. Being morally well mannered, he was aware

of what is happening in the right colors. Edward Snowden also behaved like the

one with the acute conscious sense. A self-sufficient value has every one of

the people, thus expression of the will of one person should not fall at the

same time will of others. Former security agent clued secrecy in front of

society, basing on the personal opinion. He behaved right in the relation to

the people in a whole world, what made from him a hero and U.S.A.’s number one

wanted person at the same time.

As shownbelow on the example of Edward Snowden, whistleblowing now can be called a kind

of human’s duty. To my opinion, present comprehension of the ‘whistleblowing’

term is benign. The motive of whistleblowing is not actually moral because of

the fear of being declassified, yet because of the person’s assurance that the

actions of his or her surroundings are immoral. Some governments support

whistleblowers providing special protection programs for them. For instance, OSHA’s

whistleblower statutes protects from retaliation. “An employer cannot retaliate

by taking "adverse action" against workers who report injuries, safety

concerns, or other protected activity”, claims the program official web page. If

the norm is to save lives and views, not complying with it is immoral. People

need to instruct each other on the right path and, paying attention on

Snowden’s case, whistleblowing truly holds a beneficial effect on the

enlightenment of human society.

Toconclude, everybody tend to build his own moral frames. In the majority people

behave compassionately, and realize equally if what they do is good or bad.

Humans in most cases are trying not to overstep the bounds of permitted

actions, following the rules of generally accepted moral standards. Thus,

whistleblowing cannot be treated as morally impermissible, because it implies a

respect for civic duty and service for the good of society. If whistleblowing

contains facilitation quietude and people’s well-being, as there is now, then

it is obviously an auspicious phenomenon.

1740 words