davis_response

davis_response - Steven Delaney 2-7-2011 Davis Response...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Steven Delaney 2-7-2011 Davis Response Davis discusses how numerous exceptions are to the theory of whistle blowing. He begins with standard theory and talks about the paradoxes involved with said theory. These paradoxes make room for another theory to cover different aspects for different types of situations. He them defines complicity theory to display a more specific but better case to define when whistle blowing may be required morally. Davis first talks about the situations where whistle blowing may be justified. The three cases that can warrant justification are: an act that morality permits; an act that if not done, would be immoral itself; an act that is rationally required. Whistle blowing in itself, the revealing of something that would not normally be revealed and to prevent something bad from happening, is not a moral issue. What Davis suggests is the moral issue with whistle blowing, is that a member of an organization is the only one who is able to do so. If someone from outside the organization is to reveal the same
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/01/2011 for the course CMN 3 taught by Professor Puckering during the Spring '06 term at UC Davis.

Page1 / 2

davis_response - Steven Delaney 2-7-2011 Davis Response...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online