Whistle blowing continues to dominate the news and social media in the modern world. Whistleblowers seek to hold the government, individuals and large corporations accountable for their actions. They seek to achieve this by revealing information of malpractice and illegal engagements. Most recently, Bradley Manning, who released government secrets to Wikileaks was charged with treason and sentenced to serve a jail term. The United States department of justice has also decided to pursue Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. Another individual, Edward Snowden was forced to seek asylum in a different country to escape prosecution. To some people, whistleblowers such as these are perceived to be criminals who chose to betray their country. To other people, these individuals are courageous heroes who seek to expose injustices being carried out against an unknowing public. A clear analysis demonstrates that opposing arguments to whistle blowing fail to justify their skeptical approach to the subject. As opposed to prosecuting whistle blowers, they should be praised and protected.

Whistleblowing

A whistleblower is any individual who brings the public’s attention to illegal and unethical conduct by either individuals or corporations. In most cases, whistleblowers are individuals who have the privilege of accessing critical information or documents that act as proof of the illegal activity they wish to bring to the public’s knowledge. Johnson contends that there are four main characters that can be used to identify a whistleblower (as quoted in Johnson, 2005). First, a whistleblower works to ensure that the information is made available to the public.

Secondly, a whistleblower could also be an individual who helps to get critical information from within the organization to other outside parties. These outside parties could include individuals such as journalists who then proceed to make the information available to the general public (Johnson, 2005). Thirdly, any information being retrieved by the individual must indicate the actual wrong-doings of the organization in question. Finally, an individual can only be labeled a whistleblower if he or she works for either the agency or the company in question. Journalists cannot be labeled whistleblowers for reporting injustices and other unethical activities (Johnson, 2005).

At least three main types of whistleblowers can be identified.  To begin with there is the government whistleblower who leaks classified government documents to the public through the media and other platforms such as Wikileaks (Delmas, 2015). A corporate whistleblower is any company employee who makes the decision to expose the illegal dealings of his company by availing this information to the public. The public whistleblower is referred to as the individual who provides incriminating information about companies and agencies that he has worked with in the past (Delmas, 2015). For instance, a retired soldier can be branded a public whistleblower if he is able to reveal information about past military abuse and other illegal practices.

There are two main opposing arguments that face the issue of Whistleblowing. On one hand, proponents to the prosecution of whistleblowers argue that these individual breach their professional contracts (Delmas, 2015). In addition, whistleblowers are accused of being disloyal to their country. Further, whistleblowing is also perceived to be a form of vigilantism. It can also contribute to more harm than good. These arguments are used to call for the prosecution of whistleblowers.

On the other hand, those who oppose the prosecution of whistleblowers argue against the claims of treason, breach of contracts and vigilantism used by the proponents. Whistleblowers expose serious injustices that ought to be brought to the public’s knowledge. Further, whistleblowers are only forced to pursue illegal means such as vigilantism because their prior attempts to bring this knowledge to the public through legal means were ineffective (Delmas, 2015). The supporters of whistleblowing also argue that this remains the only way avenue through which illegal and unethical practices by powerful entities can be brought to the light (Delmas, 2015).

The Problem with Whistleblowing

The wrongfulness of Whistle blowing is commonly associated with a breach of both the moral and legal obligations of the individual involved (Delmas, 2015). Prior to commencing work in government and state offices, individual are asked to sign confidentiality agreements. The same case also applies to individuals working in major corporations and organizations. By signing these confidentiality agreements, employees take an oath not to reveal company secrets.

In this regard, these employees take on the “pro tanto” moral obligation. According to the “pro tanto” moral duty, individuals are bound by their promises (Robinson, 2014). Every single individual has the moral obligation to keep the promises they make to other individuals (Robinson, 2014).  When an individual makes the promise to protect the company’s secrets and prevent the revelation of these secrets to third parties, they are morally required to keep this promise.

In addition to the moral obligation, when individual sign confidentiality agreements with their employers, a breach of this contract warrants legal prosecution. Further, the professional duty attached to an individual’s job position also prohibits him or her from divulging the company’ secrets to third parties. Notably, most philosophers contend that an individual’s failure to adhere to the duties and requirements of their professional role as either a soldier or a manager in an institution could result in a complete breakdown of the institution (Estlund, 2007). Further, it can also undermine his abilities and functions.

Based on the arguments of moral duty, professional and legal obligation, it is becomes easy to understand the stance taken by individuals who call for the prosecution of whistleblowers.  According to common criminal laws, when an employee knowingly reveals a company’s secrets, he is held liable for the breach of his confidentiality contract. Such an individual can be charged and when found guilty, awarded a prison term.

Another problem associated with whistleblowing is the harm caused by the act of whistleblowing. In most cases involving government whistleblowers, whistleblowers are accused of endangering the general public by compromising national security. Edward Snowden, a recent government whistleblower, was accused of being a great threat to the United State’s national security. By revealing incriminating information about the government’s spying activities, Snowden placed America at risk of retaliation by affected parties (Bolton, 2013). Most importantly, Snowden’s actions were interpreted as America’s inability to protect confidential information (Bolton, 2013). Further, some countries have distanced themselves from the U.S. undermining future partnership with America. In this regard, Snowden might have caused more harm than good by taking on the role of the government whistleblower.

In addition to the harm brought on to national security, other individuals may also be put in harm’s way.  When whistleblowers divulge information regarding government agents, they place the lives of these individuals in danger (Delmas, 2015). The most significant harm brought on by whistleblowing is evident in the reduced trust the public has towards governments, agencies and major corporations (Delmas, 2015). The common consensus associated with whistleblowers who reveal secret government activities is that their activities are driven my malicious intents. Most officials contend that these ‘whistleblowers’ only seek to promote propaganda, undermine the government’s ability and undermine the public’s trust in the government (Delmas, 2015). Once again, this underscores the need to prosecute rather than protect whistleblowers.

Claims of treason and vigilante acts are also used to discredit whistleblowers. They are also used to offer support for their prosecution. It is understandable and even justifiable to call for the prosecution of whistleblowers on the grounds of illegality. Pursuing justice through illegal means is tantamount to vigilantism. Activities such as these are not only illegal, but also undermine the power of the constitution and the law (Delmas, 2015). In this regard, they are “impermissible” under the rule of law.  As noted by John Locke, a civil society is bound by a social contract (Wright, 2001). The social contract requires individuals to surrender the power of self-governance and the freedom to prosecute offenders to a higher authority. This higher authority is the rule of law and the government (Wright, 2001). By taking the law into their hands, whistleblowers tend to undermine the social contract that binds civil societies together.

By choosing to reveal government secrets to the public, the enemies of a country are able to access to this information. This act reflects disloyalty and un-patriotism on the perpetrator’s part. It is due to this that most whistleblower in the United States are tried and convicted for crimes of treason and espionage (Delmas, 2015). Individuals who choose to reveal government secrets to the public are regarded as being disloyal and unpatriotic to their country.

Whistleblowers should not prosecuted

Multiple arguments can be made to discourage the prosecution of whistleblowers. As aforementioned, whistleblowing is commonly interpreted as undermining the rule of law (Delmas, 2015). In some cases, however, the manner in which the power of the state is allocated can be undermined for a greater cause. When the government fails to inform the public of its engagement in activities such as spying and eavesdropping, then whistleblowing is justifiable.

In most cases, whistleblowers tends to expose secret government activities that undermine the rights of a country’s citizens. In the case of the leaked pentagon papers, the United States involvement in war crimes became public knowledge. Prior to the leak, this information remained a secret to the general public. Meanwhile, the United States military actions in the Middle East continued to abuse the basic human rights of innocent victims. Similarly, Snowden’s decision to blow the whistle on a government spy program can also be justified. In all these cases, the public’s right to know clearly supersedes any moral obligation these two individuals had to keep this information a secret (Delmas, 2015).

In most cases, whistleblowing is presumed to be an act of vigilantism. By acquiring and disclosing information that is otherwise secret, whistleblowers tend to act illegally. Due to this, most government officials call for the prosecution of whistleblowers. As opposed to this common misconception, most whistle blowers resort to illegal means of whistle blowing after they have exhausted other legal means.  For instance, Manning who was army intelligence analyst at the time, came across incriminating information. When she tried to bring up the matter with her superiors, they chose to ignore her concerns. The even went as far as to tell her to stop investigating the matter (Delmas, 2015). Later, her attempts to contact the New York Times were also futile. Owing to this, she was left with one solution, which was to give this information to Wikileaks. Her attempt to use legal means demonstrates a show of good faith. It demonstrates that the she did not release the information with malicious intentions. On the contrary, she wished to draw the public’s attention to the injustices that were being carried out in Iraq by the U.S. government.

Arguments that cite moral obligation cannot effectively justify the prosecution of whistleblowers. While employees have the moral and professional duty to protect the secrets of their company, they also have moral beliefs that they should adhere to. Soldiers are often sent to war. When these soldiers kill innocent individuals, they tend to justify their actions by claiming a duty to their role as soldiers. Since they were following the orders of their superiors, they assume that they are exempt from the action by the moral obligation of obeying their superiors (Estlund, 2007).

In reality, these solder have the moral obligation to protect human life, especially innocent individuals. Similarly, whistleblowers demonstrate their adherence to their moral responsibilities as individuals. As opposed to keeping quiet as their company is engaged in illegal dealings, whistleblowers allow their moral responsibilities to precede other professional obligations such as confidentiality (Delmas, 2015). Owing to this, they should not be prosecuted for fulfilling their moral responsibilities.

In contrast to prosecuting whistleblowers, these individuals should be hailed as the true patriots of any country (Goodman et.al. 2007). Whistleblowers associated with Wikileaks, such as Snowden and Manning, were accused of treason and being unpatriotic. These allegations are based on their refusal to conform to basic laws and established institutions (Delmas, 2015). Patriotism, however, should focus on an individual’s feelings and attitudes for his country (Delmas, 2015).

For instance, Snowden leaked secret government information, because he felt that the government was betraying its citizens. Acting in a legal manner and being a patriot are two separate matters. While most whistleblowers tend to break the law, their motives for doing so are not malicious. These individuals make the decision to sacrifice and suffer so that the truth about illegal government dealings may be revealed. This is the mark of true patriotism (Goodman et.al. 2007).

In most whistleblower cases involving the government, officials contend that the action of the whistleblower undermines national security. This may be true to some extent. However, the government’s decision to withhold information from the public allows various injustices and unethical practices to be carried out (Delmas, 2015). As opposed to protecting national security, most government secrets are put in place to legitimize illegal activities by the government.

For instance, secret spying and screening by government agencies tends to undermine the rights of individuals (Delmas, 2015). By bringing these activities to the public’s knowledge, whistleblowers should not be treated a criminals. Their decisions only seek to expose restrictive and unlawful practices by the government. These individuals also expose cases of abuse of power by the government agencies that use national security as a front for other unduly and unethical practices.

There are two main opposing views facing whistleblowers. On one hand, people believe that they are traitors, vigilantes who undermine their moral and professional obligation. Owing to this, it is understandable why some people call for their prosecution. On the other hand, whistleblowers are seen as heroes who should be protected from any ensuing retaliation by either the government or individuals. Whistleblowers act as source of critical information. Whistleblowing allows information to be made available for scrutiny by the public. If a society is to ensure that the government and other powerful agencies and individuals are held accountable, then Whistleblowing should not be criminalized.  More focus should be placed on the whistleblower’s message rather than the whistleblower. It would not be possible for concerned citizens to expose wrong doings if they were prosecuted for exposing injustices.

References

Bolton, J. (2013). Edward Snowden’s leaks are a grave threat to the US national security. The Guardian. Retrieved on 22nd July, 2015 from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/edward-snowden-leaks-grave-threat

Delmas, C. (2015). The ethics of government whistleblowing. Social Theory and Practice. 41(1):77-105.

Estlund, D. (207). On following orders in an unjust war. The Journal of Political Philosophy. 15(2):213-34.

Goodman, M. Crump, C & Corris, s. (2007). Disavowed: The government’s unchecked retaliation against national security whistleblowers. New York: American Civil Liberties Union.

Johnson, R. (2003). Whistleblowing: When it works—and why. Boulder: Lynne Rienner publishers, quoted in Johnson, Roberta. (2005). Whistleblowing and the Police. Rutgers University Journal of Law and Urban Policy. 1(3):74-83.

Robinson, L. (2014). Obligating reasons, moral laws, and moral dispositions. Journal of Moral Philosophy. 11(1):1-34.

Wright, W. (2001).  The Social Contract. In The Wild West the Mythical Cowboy and Social Theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications Ltd.

 
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?