by Jesse Vorton

Created on: October 19, 2010

Whistle blowing is the release of information by a member (past member) of an organization who has evidence of illegal or immoral conduct in the organization, or conduct in the organization that is not in the public interest. Whistle blowing reveals information that would not be ordinarily revealed in everyday context. In almost every case whistle blowing involves an actual or at least a declared intention to prevent something bad that would otherwise occur. So how do we interpret when is a whistle blowers action morally justifiable?

Davis’ theory is the deontologist approach (Davis’s The Complicity theory) to addressing whistle blowing.

Davis’s Deontological, “The Complicity theory”

(1) What you will reveal derives from your work for an organization

(2) You are a voluntary member of that organization

(3) You believe the organization though legitimately is engaged in serious moral wrong doing

(4) You believe that your work for that organization will contribute more or less directly to the wrong if (but only if) you do not publicly reveal what you know

(5) You are justified in beliefs (C3) and (C4)

(6) Believes (C3) and (C4) are true

Michael Davis believes that when De George’s Standard theory is used to determine the conditions of when whistle blowers actions are morally justifiable, certain paradoxes appear. (A) “The paradox of burden”: That these good Samaritans are put at risk in losing their careers, financial security and personal relations. (B) “The paradox of missing harm”: The harm can be physical, psychological, and or financial. And lastly, (C) “The paradox of failure”: That in most cases the whistle blower actually never really prevents harm, though it may be their intention.

The first condition of the Complicity theory distinguishes the worker from the spy. The whistle blower learns of the information from doing their assigned jobs, as the Standard theory does not provide any indication to how the whistle blower comes in contact with the delicate information. The third condition of the Complicity theory requires moral wrong not harm like what we see in the standard theory to satisfy justification criteria for whistle blowing. The wrong does not have to be a newer event as harm must be if it is to be prevented. The fourth condition of the complicity theory is that the whistle blower believes that their work will have contributed to the wrong in question if they do nothing. The Complicity theory does not require any belief about what the whistle blowing can accomplish. They can prevent complicity if there is any to prevent simply by publicly revealing what they know.

Davis’s Complicity theory has two obvious advantages over De George’s Standard theory; the first being, that moral complicity presumes (moral) wrong doing instead of harm, hence the justification of the complicity theory avoids the paradox of missing harm. Secondly, The Complicity theory brings about a more demanding obligation than the ability to prevent harm. What is meant that we are morally obliged to avoid doing moral wrongs hence avoiding what Davis describes as the paradox of burden.

Learn more about this author, Jesse Vorton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.