WHISTLEBLOWING Whistle blowing in its most general form involves calling(public)attention to wrong doing, typically in order to avert harm. Whistle blowing is an attempt by a member or former member of an organization to disclose wrong doing in or by the organization.

The Conflict: Loyalty and livelihood Loyalty to ones family is an instinct and a duty; we should not bite the hand that feds our family We have also duty of loyalty to public trust, the law and our communities.

A thorny ethical question: To what extent the employee bear some of the guilt by not exposing the dangerous or illegal activities of an employer. The whistleblower may suffer serious personal consequences.

Kinds of Whistle blowing: Internal Whistle blowing is made to someone within the organization. Personal Whistle blowing is blowing the whistle on the offender, here the charge is not against the organization or system but against one individual.

3. The impersonal, External Whistle Blowing 3. The impersonal, External Whistle Blowing. Rarely whistleblower are honored as heroes by their fellow workers, for the following reasons:

Those did not blow the whistle guilty of immorality. They doubt the loyalty of the whistle blower to the employer. The whistleblower is perceived as a traitor, as someone who has damage the firm - the working family to which he/she belongs.

CRITERIA FOR JUSTIFIABLE WHISTLEBLOWING: According to Richard T De George there are three conditions that must hold for whistle-blowing to be morally permissible, and two additional conditions that must hold for it to be morally obligatory. The three conditions that must hold for it to be morally permissible are:

1. The firm through its product or policy will do serious and considerable harm to the public, whether in the person of the user of its product, an innocent bystander, or the general public. 2. Once an employee identifies a serious threat to the user of a product or to the general public, he or she should report it to his or her immediate superior and make his or her moral concern known. Unless he or she does so, the act of Whistle blowing is not justifiable.

3. If one's immediate superior does nothing effective about the concern or complaint, the employee should exhaust the internal procedures and possibilities within the firm. This usually will involve taking the matter up the managerial ladder, and if necessary and possible to the board of directors.

The two additional conditions for Whistle blowing to be morally obligatory: 4. Whistleblower must have accessible documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that one's view of the situation is correct, and that the company's product or practice posses a serious and likely danger to the public or to the user of the product. .

5. The employee must have good reason to believe that by going public the necessary changes will be brought about. The chance of being successful must be worth the risk one takes and danger to which one is exposed.

George further believes that situation which involve serious body harm or death are so different from non-physical harm, such as financial harm as a result of fraud. He says non physical harm is not as serious an injury as suffering physical harm.

Morally justifiable whistle-blowing are easier, safer and more efficacious. Because directors share holders and other authorities don't pay much attention to pretty or unproven complaints.