creator Davis, Michael By "paradox" I mean an apparent- and in this case, real-inconsistency between theory (our systematic understanding of whistleblowing) and the facts (what we actually know, or think we know, about whistleblowing). What concerns me is not a few anomalies, the exceptions that test a rule, but a flood of exceptions that seem to swamp the rule. This paper has four parts. The first states the standard theory of whistleblowing. The second argues that the standard theory is paradoxical, that it is inconsistent with what we know about whistleblowers. The third part sketches what seems to me a less paradoxical theory of whistleblowing. The fourth tests this new theory against one classic case of whistleblowing, Roger Boisjoly's testimony before the presidential commission investigating the Challenger disaster (the "Rogers Commission"). I use that case because the chief facts are both uncontroversial enough and well-known enough to make detailed exposition unnecessary. For the same reasons, I also use that case to illustrate various claims about whistleblowing throughout the paper. Submitted by Kelly Laas (laas@iit.edu) on 2011-10-06T19:24:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing.pdf: 2632103 bytes, checksum: 4cafc2c0f921bb21fb4ca4f011049de4 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2011-10-06T19:24:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing.pdf: 2632103 bytes, checksum: 4cafc2c0f921bb21fb4ca4f011049de4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1996 Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vo. 15, No.1. pp.3-19. 2006 1996 1996

printed matter

Philosophy Documentation Center business ethics whistleblowing Article born digital application/pdf In Copyright http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/ Open Access CSEP / Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions Illinois Institute of Technology Affiliated department http://hdl.handle.net/10560/islandora:10216