Dissolving the Moral Dilemma of Whistleblowing
Dissolving the Moral Dilemma of Whistleblowing
复制标题
解决举报的道德困境
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Lindblom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Lindblom
关于告密的伦理辩论主要涉及政治言论自由权利和对所在组织忠诚的义务之间的冲突。这就是举报人的道德困境。政治言论自由是正当的，因为它是自由民主的核心部分，而忠诚可以被激发为一种表达对同事的考虑的方式。约翰·罗尔斯的政治哲学被应用于这一困境，结果表明，忠诚的要求，在创造举报人的道德困境的意义上，与该理论不一致。从这个意义上说，不存在举报人的道德困境。这一立场被贴上了极端的标签，因为它说，告密在道德上总是被允许的。在讨论和拒绝理查德·德·乔治关于允许告密的标准时，有人指出，仅仅拒绝忠诚并不会导致极端的立场；仍然可以考虑危害。此外，有人认为，最好的方法是，在这种情况下，就像在大多数其他政治情况下一样，权衡危害是由民主的言论自由论点提供的。
The ethical debate on whistleblowing concerns centrally the conflict between the right to political free speech and the duty of loyalty to the organization where one works. This is the moral dilemma of whistleblowing. Political free speech is justified because it is a central part of liberal democracy, whereas loyalty can be motivated as a way of showing consideration for one’s associates. The political philosophy of John Rawls is applied to this dilemma, and it is shown that the requirement of loyalty, in the sense that is needed to create the moral dilemma of whistleblowing, is inconsistent with that theory. In this sense, there is no moral dilemma of whistleblowing. This position has been labelled extreme in that it says that whistleblowing is always morally permitted. In a discussion and rejection of Richard De George’s criteria on permissible whistleblowing, it is pointed out that the mere rejection of loyalty will not lead to an extreme position; harms can still be taken into account. Furthermore, it is argued that the best way is, in this as in most other political circumstances, to weigh harms is provided by the free speech argument from democracy.