David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2):257-264 (2006)
The received account of whistleblowing, developed over the last quarter century, is identified with the work of Norman Bowie and Richard DeGeorge. Michael Davis has detailed three anomalies for the received view: the paradoxes of burden, missing harm and failure. In addition, he has proposed an alternative account of whistleblowing, viz., the Complicity Theory. This paper examines the Complicity Theory. The supposed anomalies rest on misunderstandings of the received view or misreadings of model cases of whistleblowing, for example, the Challenger disaster and the Ford Pinto. Nevertheless, the Complicity Theory is important for as in science the contrast with alternative competing accounts often helps us better understand the received view. Several aspects of the received view are reviewed and strengthened through comparison with Complicity Theory, including why whistleblowing needs moral justification. Complicity Theory is also critiqued. The fundamental failure of Complicity Theory is its failure to explain why government and the public encourage and protect whistleblowers despite the possibility of considerable harm to the relevant company in reputation, lost jobs, and lost shareholder value.
|Keywords||whistleblowing Challenger De George Davis complicity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Sebastian Lutz (2012). On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science: A Defense of the Received View. HOPOS 2 (1):77–120.
Barbara Applebaum (2007). White Complicity and Social Justice Education: Can One Be Culpable Without Being Liable? Educational Theory 57 (4):453-467.
Mark T. Brown (2009). Moral Complicity in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 1-22.
John Beatty (1980). What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:397 - 426.
Michelle Ciurria (2011). Complicity and Criminal Liability in Rwanda: A Situationist Critique. Res Publica 17 (4):411-419.
Katrien Devolder & John Harris (2005). Compromise and Moral Complicity in the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate. In Nafsika Athanassoulis (ed.), Philosophical Reflections on Medical Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan.
John Gardner (2007). Complicity and Causality. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (2):127-141.
Christopher Kutz (2000). Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age. Cambridge University Press.
Larry May (2010). Complicity and the Rwandan Genocide. Res Publica 16 (2):135-152.
Albino Barrera (2010). Market Complicity and Christian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #40,544 of 1,098,992 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #175,277 of 1,098,992 )
How can I increase my downloads?