While working for the CIA and later as a subcontractor for the NSA, Edward Snowden uncovered a global surveillance system used by the US and UK to monitor communications worldwide. Despite raising concerns within his organization, he leaked classified documents to journalists, exposing privacy violations. Snowden faced legal charges and sought asylum in Russia to avoid a lengthy prison sentence.
His actions sparked a debate on “whistleblowing” – revealing wrongdoing within an organization. This essay critically examines different theories of whistleblowing in political philosophy, focusing on its moral justification and role in holding organizations accountable.
Whistleblowing involves reporting organizational wrongdoing. Two main views on its moral justification are discussed: the “Extrema Ratio,” where whistleblowing is seen as dissent to prevent harm or complicity in wrongdoing, and the “Deontic” view, which considers it a necessary practice for an organization to correct itself when facing threats to its proper functioning.
These views complement each other, providing a comprehensive assessment of whistleblowing in emergencies or as part of routine efforts to ensure an organization stays ethical through the collective actions of its members.
THE PRACTICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING
The term “whistleblowing” originated in the business ethics field to describe professionals reporting safety concerns in product design. It later extended to exposing corruption and abuses of power. Whistleblowing involves a member of a legitimate organization voluntarily reporting wrongdoing within that organization to initiate corrective action.
There are six key elements to identify whistleblowing cases:
- The action: Reporting, either openly or confidentially.
- The object: Reporting wrongdoing within an organization, which could be systemic or occasional, lawful or illicit.
- The agent: The whistleblower is an internal member of the organization.
- The locus: Wrongdoing occurs within the organization’s boundaries.
- The addressee: Reporting is directed either internally (to superiors or an office) or externally (authorities or media).
- The aim: Whistleblowing aims to correct organizational wrongdoing.
Edward Snowden’s case fits the whistleblowing criteria:
- Action: He openly reported classified information on mass surveillance programs.
- Object: He reported abusive use of power by Secret Services violating privacy.
- Agent: Snowden was an internal member of relevant organizations.
- Locus: Wrongdoing occurred within the U.S. government agencies where he worked.
- Addressee: He initially reported internally and later to the press.
- Aim: Snowden aimed to correct the violation of citizens’ rights.
Julian Assange, however, doesn’t fit the criteria as he collected information externally and wasn’t an internal whistleblower. Understanding these criteria helps analyze the moral justification of whistleblowing and differentiate it from similar actions.
THE EXTREMA RATIO VIEW
In the philosophical discussion, there’s a view called the “Extrema Ratio view” that explains whistleblowing as a rare and extreme response to serious wrongdoing within an organization. This view suggests that whistleblowing goes beyond regular duties of being a part of the organization. It’s like an act of protest in emergencies or when usual reporting methods fail. Snowden’s case seems to fit this view.
According to this view, whistleblowing is initially seen as morally wrong, but it might be justified if certain conditions are met. The wrongdoing within the organization must be significant and supported by strong evidence. Whistleblowing should come with minimal costs to the whistleblower and others involved. The benefits of the disclosure, such as bringing positive change, should outweigh the potential negative consequences.
There are two main ways to justify whistleblowing in this view:
- Stopping or preventing serious harm: Whistleblowing can be justified if it helps avoid substantial harm, such as violating public interest.
- Avoiding complicity in wrongdoing: Whistleblowing might be seen as protecting someone’s moral integrity and fulfilling duties of justice.
Overall, the Extrema Ratio view suggests that whistleblowing can be morally required in extreme cases of serious wrongdoing, but it must meet specific criteria to be justified as a duty.
Harm-based justifications
Harm-based reasons for whistleblowing argue that if a member of an organization has evidence of harmful actions or practices within that organization, they should speak out to prevent or stop significant harm. This is especially true if the evidence is strong and the cost to the whistleblower is reasonable. Harm here refers to things like damage to people’s health, safety, or well-being, as well as actions against the public interest like fraud or corruption.
In Snowden’s case, he blew the whistle because he believed it was necessary to prevent significant harm caused by violating the privacy rights of many people around the world. Despite the personal costs he faced, he saw it as a last resort to stop harm.
Although the harm-based justification is commonly accepted, it’s not without criticism. Some argue that it’s too narrow and only focuses on measurable harmful consequences. Some harmful actions might not have clear and immediate effects, like small-scale corruption or questionable hiring practices. Additionally, defining and balancing the “public interest” can be tricky, and it’s uncertain how much weight should be given to it compared to the costs borne by the whistleblower.
While the harm-based view is valid, it alone may not cover all aspects of the ethical analysis of whistleblowing.
Complicity-based justifications
The second version of the Extrema Ratio view looks at the moral protection of the person making the report, focusing on their integrity and moral values, rather than just the nature of the wrongdoing and its consequences. According to this perspective, a member of an organization should blow the whistle if they believe it would prevent them from being involved in some wrongful action within the organization. This means that blowing the whistle is justified when it helps them maintain their moral integrity and commitments, even if the specific wrong and its harm aren’t clearly defined.
This view emphasizes the individual’s personal moral values and their commitment to avoiding complicity in wrongdoing. For example, Snowden blew the whistle to avoid being implicated in violating people’s privacy rights.
However, this approach has its limitations. The concept of complicity itself is unclear and can be debated. It’s not always clear when someone is considered an accomplice in a wrongdoing – whether actively participating in it or just being aware of it. This makes it challenging to provide a definite answer in situations where someone has knowledge of wrongdoing but isn’t directly involved.
In summary, while the Extrema Ratio view adds important insights about the moral justification of whistleblowing, it might not cover all scenarios and dilemmas that members of an organization could face when deciding whether to blow the whistle. It’s better suited for emergency situations or clear cases of harm or complicity, and may not fully address the complex moral issues that arise in everyday organizational functioning.
THE DEONTIC VIEW
The Extrema Ratio view of whistleblowing is helpful for understanding when whistleblowing might be justified as an extraordinary action in extreme situations. However, it doesn’t provide clear guidance for everyday situations where the wrongdoing’s consequences are unclear and the whistleblower’s involvement isn’t obvious. Also, it focuses on extraordinary cases, missing the role of whistleblowing in regular organizational functioning.
The Deontic view offers a different perspective. It sees whistleblowing as a regular duty for maintaining well-functioning organizations. Organizational roles come with specific responsibilities, and members have a duty to report wrongdoing when they come across it. This view emphasizes internal reporting mechanisms and the duty to hold fellow members accountable.
In summary, both the Extrema Ratio and Deontic views are valuable together. The Extrema Ratio view helps in extreme cases, while the Deontic view offers a broader perspective on how whistleblowing fits into maintaining a well-functioning organization. Combining these views provides a more comprehensive understanding of whistleblowing’s moral aspects.
