Compare and contrast (explain the similarities and the differences between) DeGeorge's and Brenkert's approaches to whistleblowing according to the information provided below:

Main goals of the chapter: To identify conditions that make whistleblowing morally justified To identify conditions that make whistleblowing morally required Focus: non-governmental, impersonal, external whistleblowing . Nongovernmental: focusing only on employees of private corporations (non-government employees) Impersonal: the whistleblower is trying to protect other people (not himself) External: reporting the problem to someone outside the corporation, such as newspapers, government regulators, or other external entities like WikileaksFocus: non-governmental, impersonal, external whistleblowing Note: there are other kinds of whistleblowers, that are more controversial (e.g., government employees like Edward Snowden). But the focus here is just on explaining the simple and clear cases where whistleblowing is obviously justified, and then later we can worry about how to handle more difficult kinds of cases. We're also only looking at cases where a whistleblower is motivated by moral concern to save the public from the dangerous consequences of what the corporation is doing. We'll set aside other concerns, like trying to get reward money. One major consideration for anyone who intends to blow the whistle on their organization: risk > risk to self (retaliation-refusing to promote, firing) > it's currently illegal to formally punish whistleblowers by firing or demoting them. But it's often difficult to prove that an employer was retaliating. ) risk to one's family, if they depend on the income > risk to the corporation > risk to one's co-workersWhen is whistleblowing justified? DeGeorge provides three conditions that justify whistleblowing. If they are all satisfied, then a person is justified in blowing the whistle. If any are not satisfied, then whistleblowing is not justified. When is whistleblowing justified? (1) There must be an expectation of serious and considerable harm to the public > minor harm doesn't justify whistleblowing > harm to employees doesn't always justify whistleblowing -> must be serious harm that you expect to happen to the public.When is whistleblowing justified? (2) One has reported the expected harm in the first instance to one's supervisor, or boss. > Gives the firm a chance to address the wrong, without going public and harming the company. > The assumption would normally be that the company does not want to cause serious harm to the public! So they should want to fix the problem. When is whistleblowing justified? (3) Exhaust the internal avenues, as far as reasonably possible > If you've reported the problem to your supervisor, and they've done nothing, then go up the chain of command, as far as possible. If the company has an ethics office or ombudsperson, report to them.When is whistleblowing justified? Sum up (1) -(3): if you expect serious harm to happen to the public because of what your company is doing, and you've reported to your boss, and you've reported to anyone else inside the company who might stop it, and no one fixes the problem, you are justified (permitted) to blow the whistle. But (1) -(3) by themselves don't require you to blow the whistle, because of the risk involved. So, when is whistleblowing morally required? Whistleblowing is required if you satisfy (1) - (3), plus two more conditions, (4) and (5). (4) One has documented evidence to prove to a reasonable, impartial observer that the company's behavior/product does pose a serious threat to the public. > Without documented proof, you'll likely fail to prevent the harm even if you do blow the whistle.So, when is whistleblowing morally required? Whistleblowing is required if you satisfy (1) - (3), plus two more conditions, (4) and (5). (5) One has good reason to think that by going public, the necessary change will be brought about. > E.g., if the company is large and powerful, you might have good reason to think that it won't make any difference if you blow the whistle. In that case, you're not required to blow the whistle. So, when is whistleblowing morally required? If you satisfy (1) - (5), and you don't blow the whistle, then you are morally blameworthy for not doing so. (A couple of ethical theories that could apply here: Virtue ethics might say: it's cowardly if you don't blow the whistle, when you satisfy conditions (1) - (5). Care ethics might say: through your company's relationships with the broader public (e.g. customers), you have a relationship with the broader public. And you have an obligation to respond when you perceive some harm.)Final section of the chapter: DeGeorge leaves us with a few more suggestions, to reduce the need for whistleblowers. (1) There should be legal protection for whistleblowers: make that a protected category, like race, gender, and so on. Ideally, it would be best if there were no need for whistleblowers. But if there are going to be whistleblowers, then we should have legal protections for them. (Note: there are currently legal protections for whistleblowers, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which makes it illegal to fire whistleblowers. DeGeorge would say that this is a good thing.) Final section of the chapter: DeGeorge leaves us with a few more suggestions, to reduce the need for whistleblowers. (2) The law should punish those who have been responsible for a corporation's negligence or poor conduct (not just making the corporation itself pay a fine; provide legal punishments for the individuals responsible). Then management will not be so likely to ignore serious harms that the company might cause.Final section of the chapter: DeGeorge leaves us with a few more suggestions, to reduce the need for whistleblowers. (3) Corporations above a certain size could be legally required to have an internal auditor or ombudsperson, whose job it would be to investigate and take care of negligent or dangerous products or practices. Then employees would have a safe internal person or division that they could approach to protect the public's well-being Brenkert, "Whistle-Blowing, Moral Integrity, and Organizational Ethics"Main goals of this chapter: . To define what counts as whistleblowing . To identify conditions that give a person the responsibility to blow the whistle . To locate that responsibility in a broader theory of integrity * To consider how good whistleblowing is as a solution to corporate misconduct Defining "whistleblowing" Brenkert discusses some other people's definitions of whistleblowing. You can ignore that discussion. The main thing is to see how Brenkert understands it. He gives five conditions that constitute whistleblowing, from p.353 (right column) to the end of p.354.Defining "whistleblowing" (1) One has a privileged position with respect to an organization > could be a current or past employee, a manager, a contractor - anyone with access to information about the organization, that is not available to the public (2) whistleblowing can be internal or external > internal: reporting wrongdoing outside the normal reporting structure (e.g., going over your boss's head) > external: reporting wrongdoing to an outside entity, like government regulators or Wikileaks Defining "whistleblowing" (3) Whistleblowing is intentional > accidentally leaving sensitive information where others can find it is not whistleblowing (4) The wrongdoing is substantial > Telling Wikileaks about stolen pens is not whistleblowing (5) One reports the wrongdoing to an individual or organization that one thinks has the power to try to fix the wrongdoingSo far, that was all about what whistleblowing is - not an explanation of when a person is justified in blowing the whistle, or when one has a responsibility to blow the whistle. So, when do you have a responsibility to blow the whistle? 2 things: (1) the "Principle of Positional Responsibility" tells you when your responsibility as a member of the organization is to blow the whistle. But (2) that responsibility must be interpreted through the lens of integrity. Principle of Positional Responsibility (PPR) (pp. 355-6) Our role or position within an organization can place special responsibilities on us, which other people don't have. If: (i) we have standing within an organization, which (ii) gives us access to knowledge of serious wrongdoing in the organization, and (iii) no one else is doing anything to stop it, then (iv) there is a responsibility on us to report the wrongdoing to someone who will be able to stop it.Integrity: this is about doing what one believes is right, even when it is difficult or inconvenient to do so. And it involves having thought carefully about one's priorities. The PPR bids us to reports wrongs to people who can stop them. But we need to also interpret the wrong, the likelihood of success, and the expected consequences for ourselves and for people we care about, through the lens of integrity. So we can see this as a kind of applied virtue ethics approach to whistleblowing. We need to ask ourselves: how would a person with integrity balance the wrongs being observed in the company, with the rest of his or her own well-being, and that of the other people that they care about? For Brenkert, we can't lay down hard and fast rules here for everyone to follow. It falls to the individuals facing the decision to weigh these considerations.We can also see this account of whistleblowing is as very much in the spirit of care ethics, with its emphasis on the important relationships a person stands in, and a careful attention to all the details about a person's role responsibilities, and the values that a person takes as defining who she is. Final section of the paper: what is the problem that whistleblowing is meant to solve? And, how good is whistleblowing as a solution to that problem? The problem: serious wrongdoing in organizations How effective is whistleblowing as a solution? > Often not very effective. The wrongdoing is often not fixed even after the whistleblower comes forward. And whistleblowers often face retaliation of various kinds. Better solution: make organizations self-correcting.Creating self-correcting organizations: (1) Organizations should actively seek information regarding problems and rule-violations, from their own employees (2) Members of the organization must have an obligation to come forward and report problems internally. (3) There must be some means within the organization to receive the report and initiate the required changes. (E.g., ethics office, or internal auditor). (4) Organizations should foster an attitude among employees, to resist wrongdoing where they see it. (5) In the broader social context outside an organization: there also needs to be social pressure, and governmental regulations, to protect whistleblowers, when the self- correcting features of an organization fail