Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Describe one of the paradoxes of the standard account of whistleblowing described by Davis. Explain why he thinks it is a paradox and how he thinks his account remedies the paradox. Say whether or not you think he is correct by reference to a real example.
This paper by Michael Davis informs the reader of what the theory behind the act of whistle-blowing is. He has described the act and has given reasoning for individuals to indulge in such an operation. Davis has given the standard theory of whistle-blowing, which has five conditions in which whistle-blowing is carried out, followed by three paradoxes.
Whistle-blowing has been described as unethical, but whoever blows the whistle normally has justification for it. It is a morally wrong act. But now a theory has been devised, which accounts for whistle-blowing. In the first condition, the organization to which the would-be whistle-blower belongs would harm the public through its products or services. All five conditions are related to the organizations to which the would-be whistle-blower belongs.
In the second instance, the threat that has been detected by him would be reported to a superior official. In the third condition, the internal procedures within the organization have been tried by the individual. Two conditions have been described further which morally require whistle-blowing. The first part is when he has proof for the observer, of the threat that is posed to him or her. And in the second part, entails the fact that the reasoning that has been given by him of the threat will considerably reduce its effects, upon disclosure. If the five aforementioned conditions are met, then the theory states that it is decent Samaritanism . This is a doing that morality is obliged to have, classifying it as a necessity.
Davis says that the standard theory does not give justified reasoning for whistle-blowing, and the act cannot be classified as a morally ethical act. Thus he gives three paradoxes for the theory.
In one of the paradoxes, he describes whistle-blowers to be at risk anyway, and they cannot be considered decent Samaritans. They are good people, who have to face risks in their careers, due to this duty they perform. The risks involve financial insecurity and harm to their public relations. Fingers will be pointed at this person, and it could be life-threatening, as enmity will be conceived.
Davis thinks whistle-blowing is a paradoxical issue because there is no reasonable justification for it. According to an aspect of the theory, if there is good reasoning for revealing the threat that can be posed as a result of whistle-blowing, and the mental damage it can cause, then Davis thinks that the moral justification of whistle-blowing is contradicting its history. He says that the justifications that have been given for whistle-blowing are insufficient and unconvincing to him, and therefore calls it the paradox of failure; merely because his opinions are not in unison with the theory.
The Complicity Theory has been devised by Davis, which provides further justifications for whistle-blowing. He states two advantages of his theory, one that moral complicity involves prevention of the wrongdoing rather than the harm, and that we are forced to do things, which can cause harm.
I think he is right in placing his theory as a result of the standard theory because it is essential to get into the situation itself, in order to understand it better. I was involved in a road accident once, which made me feel the pain of the sufferer, who I personally took to the hospital, and left only after he was treated. This is an example of the complicity Davis spoke of, in which personal involvement makes you feel the pain of the situation.
Reference
Davis, M. Some Paradoxes of Whistle-blowing.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.