Ethics

Generally, a whistleblower is an individual who raises concern about a wrongdoing occurring in an organization  usually the government. The whistleblower can make their allegations by 1) formal citing of violations internally, 2) influencing policy-making, and 3) formal public accusation. Usually, the whistleblower prepares a formal accusation against another individual or group of individuals in a court of law.

Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers  that is, they report misconduct to another employee or superior within an organization. One interesting fact about internal whistleblowers is the conditions which forced them to act against an unacceptable behavior. According to some psychologists, the perpetuation of unacceptable behavior (whether formal or informal) is the driving motivation of whistleblowers. People are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior. This is to assume that there is a complaint system available for redress. Complaint system provides the whistleblower an avenue to make hisher allegations against an individual or particular group within an organization.

External whistleblowers report misconduct to persons or institutions outside the organization. In many cases, whistleblowers report misconduct to lawyers, civil society groups, the media, and government agencies. The whistleblower recognizes the fact that the misconduct cannot (or almost impossible) be resolved within the bounds of the organization. As such, there is a need to call the attention of official political bodies.

Before discussing the ethical consequences of whistleblowing, there is a need to define the process itself. The stages of whistleblowing are as follows

The potential whistleblower recognizes misconduct within an organization. Misconduct means unacceptable behavior or course of action

The potential whistleblower examines the nature of misconduct  what rules are violated, to what extent, etc.

The whistleblower then files a formal or informal complaint to superiors in an organization. The whistleblower may opt to disseminate the extent of misconduct to other employees within an organization

If management fails to comply with the complaint, then the whistleblower elevates it to higher authorities. The whistleblower may go to the media to expose the misconduct
The whistleblower then formalizes the complaint, seeks witnesses, and to some extent, demands necessary information from the organization (where the misconduct occurred).

The whistleblower is free from moral guilt if heshe is not a participant of the reported misconduct. The whistleblower is accountable to the law if heshe is a participant of the reported misconduct. From an epistemological viewpoint, only the first case can be considered an act of whistleblowing. The second case is an extreme view of criminal liability. In the second case, the aim of the whistleblower is not to rectify the misconduct but save himselfherself from criminal liability. The first case is a true example of whistleblowing.