Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
the need for whistle-blowing by creating management structures and communication
processes that allow concerns to be raised, discussed, and resolved.
This may be easier said than done. Robert Spitzer observes that organizations have
shifted away from principle-based decision making to utilitarian decision making. A
characteristic of rule-oriented ethical decision making is its absolute nature. According
to Kantianism or social contract theory, the end never justifies the means. If an action vi-
olates a moral rule, it shouldn't be done, period. In contrast, a utilitarian process weighs
expected benefits and harms. Once an organization begins using utilitarian thinking,
the question is no longer “Should we do it?” but “How much of it can we do without
harm?” Spitzer writes, “One can see situations in which it would be permissible to use
an evil means to achieve a good so long as enough benefit can be actualized.” He sug-
gests that organizations should return to using principle-based ethics in their decision
making [15].
WHISTLE-BLOWING AS A MORAL DUTY
A third response is to assert that under certain circumstances people have a moral duty
to blow the whistle. Whistle-blowing is alluded to in clauses 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 2.05,
2.09, 3.01, 6.06, and 6.13 of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional
Practice. These clauses provide a justification for whistle-blowing in a variety of circum-
stances.
Richard De George believes whistle-blowers should ask themselves five questions:
1. Do you believe the problem may result in “serious and considerable harm to the
public”?
2. Have you told your manager your concerns about the potential harm?
3. Have you tried every possible channel within the organization to resolve the prob-
lem?
4. Have you documented evidence that would persuade a neutral outsider that your
view is correct?
5. Are you reasonably sure that if you do bring this matter to public attention, some-
thing can be done to prevent the anticipated harm?
According to De George, you have a right to whistle-blow if you answer yes to the first
three questions; if you answer yes to all five questions, you have a duty to whistle-
blow [16].
De George's five requirements are controversial. Some would say whistle-blowing
is justified even when fewer requirements are met. For example, what if the potential
whistle-blower knows about a problem that could result in death or injury to millions
of people, such as a meltdown inside a nuclear power plant? The whistle-blower has
communicated his concerns to his manager, but there is not time to lobby every potential
decision maker in the company. He is reasonably sure that if he contacted a television
station, something could be done to prevent the meltdown. At the very least, the media
could alert people so that they could get out of harm's way. Shouldn't that person be
obliged to whistle-blow, even though the answer to the third question is no?
