FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

P. O. BOX 1, KYAMBOGO – KAMPALA, UGANDA

ENGINEERING ETHICS TETE 2206

ASSIGNMENT

NAME REGISTRATION SIGNATURE

NUMBER
KATENDE JOHN 18/U/ETE/10140/PE

YEAR OF STUDY: TWO

SEMESTER: TWO

WHISTLE BLOWING
It refers to making a public accusation within an organization. It is an important
ethical situation which periodically attracts wild attention.

In the usual case, the charges are met by an employee or a former employee who
has been liable to obtain the attention of the organization `s management to the
problem.

Sometimes whistleblowing is confined within the organization where the whistle

blower`s supervision is bypassed in an appeal to higher management.

An important issue to determine the situation under engineers are justified in

blowing the whistle, De George, a Business and Professor of Ethics , suggests that
it is morally permissible for engineers to engage in whistle blowing when the
following conditions are met.

In 1981, De George offered some specific conditions for when an engineer is:

(a) Permitted to blow the whistle-Moral Authority

(b) Obligated to do so.-Moral Duty

Permissive Whistle Blowing per De George:

1) The harm that will be done by the product [or company action] to the public is
serious and considerable.
2) The engineer (or employee) has made their concerns known to their superiors.
3) The engineer (or employee) has received no satisfaction from their immediate
supervisors and he has exhausted the channels available within the company,
including going to the board of directors.

Mandatory Whistle Blowing per De George:

4) The engineer has documented evidence that would convince a reasonable,
impartial observer that his/her concern for public safety is correct and the company
product or action is likely to cause serious and considerable public harm.
5) There is strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent
the threatened serious harm.
A number of people evaluated De George`s argument who include James, Aipern,
Ladd and McFarland.

James (1991) believes De George is too lenient.  James believes an individual has
a moral obligation to blow the whistle when the first three conditions are met, as
well.  For James, the degree of the obligation depends on the extent to which we
are capable of foreseeing the severity and the consequences of the wrongdoing.  
He worries that De George's model leaves us with no guidance when we are
confronted with cases involving sexual harassment, violations of privacy, industrial
espionage, and so forth.  James also takes issue with the definition of the word
“harm.”

Alpern (1991) argues that De George's model lets engineers off too easily from
their whistle-blowing responsibilities. 
Alpern believes that engineers must be willing to make greater sacrifices than
others because they are in a greater position to do certain kinds of social harm. He
believes that these obligations come from a fundamental principle of "ordinary
morality," e.g. we must do no harm.

Ladd (1991) believes that requiring engineers to blow the whistle in non-
extraordinary cases (such as in De George's conditions 1-3) can be undesirable
from an ethical point of view because it demands that these individuals be "moral
heroes."  Engineers should not have to be heroes or "saints."

De George and Ladd seem correct in claiming that engineers should not be
required to be moral heroes or saints.  James and Alpern also seem to be correct in
noting that engineers, because of the positions of responsibility they hold, should
be expected to make greater sacrifices.

McFarland (1991) offers a compromise view and argues that, collectively,

engineers might be held to a higher standard of social responsibility than ordinary
individuals. 
However, the onus of responsibility should not fall directly on engineers as
individual engineers.  Rather, it should be shouldered by engineers as members of
the engineering profession.

Problems of whistle blowing.

The decision to blow the whistle requires great moral courage.
The following are the problems a person blowing the whistle may face during the
course of doing so;

 Reduced Employment Prospects

Whistleblowing brings a lot of attention to both the whistleblower and the

organization.
There are the legal testimonies, media interviews, and investigations that can harm
the employability of the whistleblower.

Industry players and managers may consider whistleblowers as indiscreet and

disloyal for exposing company secrets though an ordinary person would treat a
whistleblower as a hero for exposing corruption.
Media attention may actually harm the whistleblower because he or she can be
blacklisted in their profession.

 Complications

There are complications that can arise from the legal process or lawsuits, and the
whistleblower may be forced to hire an attorney as the media will dig deeper into
the whistleblower’s life in an attempt to find something to write about.
In addition, the whistleblower is exposed to threats from all directions, including
from their former co-workers and supervisors.
All of these elements can cause a lot of stress that can lead to bad health or even
cracks in relationships.

Framework for solving Ethical conflicts.

In this, it is important to distinguish between the internal and external appeal
except under very unusual circumstances that all internal options should be
explained before seeking an appeal external to the organization.

The procedure for solving Ethical conflicts follows as shown;

1) Internal appeal options

a) Individual preparation

 Maintain a record of events and details.

 Examine the company`s internal appeal`s process.
 Know the laws of the state.
 Identify alternative courses of action.
 Specify the outcome that you would expect the appeal to accomplish.

b) Communicate with immediate supervisor.

 Initiate informal discussions

 Make a formal appeal
 Indicate that you would intend to begin the company`s internal process of
appeal.

c) Initiate appeal through the internal chain of command

 Maintain formal communication appeal

 Formally inform the company that you intend to pursue an external solution

External appeal options

a) Personal options

 Engage legal council

 Contact your professional society

b) Communicate with the client

c) Contact the media /medium.

Once the individual has studied and documented the facts and formulated a plan
for appeal, the matter should be discussed with his or her immediate supervisor.
Remember that in developing your position, if it is important to recognize the
moral rights of the company over the profession and society and not just
expressing concern for the impacts of the issue on yourself.

Failure to fully communicate your concerns to your immediate supervisor or going

over his head to higher levels will be viewed negatively by all those involved and
will decrease the likelihood of a favorable resolution.

Finally be sure to inform your supervisor in writing of your intention to appeal

beyond that level. The process of appealing an ethical conflict within the company
is similar to a process of interacting with your immediate supervisor.

Formal steps should follow informal discussions and steps within the appeal chain
should not be bypassed.
If the internal appeal process does not resolve the ethical conflict, then the
individual should formally notify the company that they intend to continue with an
external review of the problem.

Before expressing any public concerns, legal advice should be obtained.

A lawyer can identify courses of action and legal pit falls in your external appeal.

While lawyers understand the legal issues, they may not have technical
background to evaluate the technical adequacy of your argument.
For this reason, it will be useful to involve an Engineering Professional Society as
an impartial judge of your arguments.

If your company works for a client in the issue that you are concerned with then
the client should be approached before going public.
The company`s client may give pressure to the company to resolve the issue
internally or the client may provide the resources to obtain an unbiased review of
the issue.

The last resort to solving ethical conflict is public disclosure. The only case where
whistle blowing is acceptable before following the described above is if there is an
immediate danger to the public.