Speaking out, blowing the whistle on wrongdoing

This author has a contract to write a book on whistleblowing for Ethics Press of the UK. This presentation is an outline of that book, and the research underpinning it. It is presented to this audience as one method of obtaining comments and suggestions on its underlying theses.

The basic underlying thesis is that we all have an obligation to speak out on wrongdoing, The world is full of conflict at the moment, both physical conflict and a conflict in ideas and concepts. The conflict between the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States is just one example. But there are many others - gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, religious rights, managing masks and vaccinations in the Covid 19 pandemic. This book seeks to establish guidelines by which we might decide on such issues. And then to speak out against those versions that we consider wrong. Or versions that would be promoting wrongdoing.

This a much wider definition of whistleblowing than previously published. The most extensively adopted definition of whistleblowing is that of Near and Miceli in 1985. Whistleblowing is "the disclosure by organizational members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action".

Miceli, Near and Dworkin's study in 2008 endorses this definition, noting that it "appears to be the most widely used".

This book, however, widens that definition, a definition that is inherent in the title "Speaking Out". The subtitle "Blowing the Whistle on Wrongdoing" asserts that we have an overriding obligation to speak out against wrongdoing, wherever it occurs.

The book, and this paper, is in three parts. The first part we term traditional or institutional whistleblowing – the Miceli and Near definition of whistleblowing. It is limited to one organisation and requires a mechanism to investigate the allegation and protect the whistleblower. For example, an early foray into managing whistleblowing the 2014 book In the Public Interest, Protecting those who speak out identifies that an early objective was to protect whistleblowers. This objective is still valid. Practices have widened and deepened since then. This part seeks to summarise what has happened.

The second part seeks to define wrongdoing. Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition of a wrongdoing. The various ethical theories developed by moral philosophers over the centuries at times conflict, one with the other, and therefore do not provide a solid or useful basis on which to make a decision. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative for instance "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law," is giving the OK to those who argue that we should not wear a covid mask.

Some observers even assert that no universal definition of morality is possible. One definition of wrongdoing is that it is an action against the public interest, but even this generalisation does not cover all wrongs.

This part searches through the moral theories over history, through King Solomon's proverbs, the Asian philosophers, JS Mill and other modern moralists, and the teachings of Jesus Christ (mainly The Parable of the Good Samaritan, and the Sermon on the Mount), and comes up with one rule that covers most moral conflict.

Our overriding moral obligation is to help those who need help, and above all not to harm anyone. This rule has near universal applicability. Occasionally we need to inflict a small harm in order to obtain a greater good - budget choices for example - but for the most part it defines the moral decision that has to be made.

This part has one of the most incomprehensible positions taken on whistleblowing. This is the negative opinion on whistleblowing taken by some moral philosophers. An Oxford University Press book on business ethics describes whistleblowing as "characteristic of the worst excesses of Nazi Germany or the Soviet system". It gives six arguments against whistleblowing, including that "it is sneaky, underhand and destroys trust in the workplace".

This issue of destroying trust in the workplace is repeated by many of the major philosophy writers on ethics. It is an unfortunate position to take, for the centre for research and writing on ethical behaviour is in the philosophy departments of our universities.

The third part adds some words on the ultimate possibility of an advanced whistleblower system worldwide. Although far from being realisable today, it nevertheless offers the possibility of ending some of the excesses that we see on our TV screens - constant conflict, with thousands of people fleeing their homelands. It includes a wide-ranging series of conflicts, from the bitter conservative/liberal disputes and attacks on basic democratic thinking to actual war. Solving these problems is a dream, but with the ever-growing capabilities of the human race, it is achievable. By speaking out against these inadequacies in the human endeavour, we can achieve that dream.

Some German generals opposed Hitler in starting WWII. They did not believe Germany would win. In May 1938, the army leadership was made aware of Hitler's intention of invading Czechoslovakia, even at the risk of war with Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The Army Chief of Staff, General Ludwig Beck, regarded this as not only immoral but reckless, since he believed that Germany would lose such a war. Hans Oster and Beck sent emissaries to Paris and London to advise the British and French to resist Hitler's demands, and thereby strengthen the hand of Hitler's opponents in the Army. Neville Chamberlin's visit to Munich in 1938 and his agreement with Adolf Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia put off the possibility of military opposition to Hitler.

Chamberlin's visit to Munich is now regarded as a great stupidity. He promised "peace for our time". This optimism was short lived, as the Munich Agreement was broken within a year and Britain went to war over the Nazi invasion of Poland. Chamberlin was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Beck was involved in the 1944 von Stauffenberg plot against Hitler and was killed during the purge that followed. Hans Osler was hanged in Flossenbürg concentration camp, in Nazi Germany in 1945.

There were a number of German generals who did not want Germany to go to war . Britain had a formidable Navy. France had the world's strongest land army. Together the French and British air forces were superior to the Luftwaffe. As events demonstrated, Germany was eventually out gunned and lost the war.

But the possibility is there that whistlebowing can avert a war. The blower of the whistle would be a senior member of the aggressor government, who wanted to prevent the war. He, or maybe she, may do so for the same reasons as the German generals in WWII. They thought their country could not win. Or they may be a player in the power struggle in the aggressive country – they wanted the top spot. They could reveal to the United Nations the aggressor's intention to invade a neighbouring country. There is an office for the United Nations Development Program in every country in the world. The UN has the objective of preventing war, of ensuring peace , so would use its blue helmets to prevent war,

The fourth section suggests that this approach would fail unless steps are taken to strengthen the UN capability to prevent war. There are many examples of UN failures today:

• The current crisis in Ukraine
• Inability to stop the Rwandan genocide in 1994
• Not being able to end the Israel-Palestine conflict
• Failure to prevent the 2017 Rohingya genocide in Myanmar
• The Kashmir dispute being the oldest and most serious of all is unresolved since 1948
• Bosnia, where Dutch UN Peacekeepers failed to prevent the Srebrenica massacre in which Bosnian Serb forces murdered over 8000 Bosnian Muslims
• Syria, where protests clamouring for political change, evolved into a civil war
• Papua New Guinea, where local indigenous people clamour for independence from Indonesia
• The Vietnam War raged for 19 years and cost the lives of two million people. The UN proved powerless to stop it.

This writer has endeavoured to determine why the United Nations has failed to achieve its objective of ensuring a peaceful world. I have identified three possible reasons.

1. The veto power of the five founding nations

2. Reliance on countries willing to provide peacekeeping troops, instead of using its own policing forces

3. Incompetence on the part of the Secretary General, who is dependent for his appointment on the five veto wielding countries.

To summarise the fourth section: It we can strengthen the United Nations' capability to prevent war, we can add the ultimate capability to a whistleblowing action preventing war