Whistleblowing entails an ethical dilemma as the individual considering becoming a whistleblower is torn between two competing loyalties, loyalty to the corporation and loyalty to society or the law or some higher morality. Whistleblowing can be defined as the attempt by an employee or former employee of an organization to disclose what he or she believes to be wrongdoing in or by the organization. One problem is that whistleblowers nearly always experience retaliation, ranging from being fired to being vilified. Society recognizes that there is a need for whistleblowing, the need to expose corruption and wrongdoing, and legal structures have been developed to encourage and protect the whistleblower, showing that society recognizes this as a socially valuable act. Inherent in any discussion of the matter is a comparison and conflict of responsibilities--both the employer and the employee have responsibilities to themselves, the organization, and society, as well as to each other. The whistleblower in a sense challenges this relationship by accusing the employer of having abrogated his or her responsibility, and the employer in turn claims that the employee is doing precisely that by revealing confidential matters, true or not. The law says that revealing the truth is socially valuable and that both parties have a responsibility to do so, while revealing false information on either side is to be punished. Freedom and responsibility here go hand in hand.
The whistleblower is a teller of tales on the employer, and as such comes under criticism as snitches, something we are all taught not to be even as we are also taught the conflicting message to reveal wrongdoing. This has been a built-in moral dilemma in society for a long time, based on contradictory messages and social attitudes that show little indication of being resolved in the near future. When an individual faces the choice of whether to reveal some wrongdoing or no...