Cultural Relativism and Whistleblowing Essay

Explain using the ethics of cultural relativism the advantages and disadvantages of whistle blowing Cultural relativism is the principle regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the viewpoint of that culture itself (Chegg.com: 2012). It is the concept that the importance of a particular cultural idea varies from one society or societal subgroup to another and that ethical and moral standards are relative to what a particular society or culture believes to be good or bad, right or wrong. In other words, â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. According to Philosophy All About.org (2012) the view that the varied moral or ethical systems are all equally valid is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil; so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the â€Å"best,† or â€Å"worst,† and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered â€Å"right† or â€Å"wrong.† Cultural perspective therefore can help us understand why certain actions are considered right or wrong by a particular culture. The actions being referred to include the act of whistle blowing. Boatwright (2009: 90) defines the act whistle blowing as the release of information by a member or former member of an organisation that is evidence of illegal and/or immoral conduct in the organisation or conduct in the organisation that is not in the public interest. Nadler and Schulman (2006) assert that whistle blowing is intricately linked to ethics in that it represents a person’s understanding, at a deep level, that an action his or her organisation is taking is taking is harmful and that it interferes with people’s rights or is unfair or detracts from the common good. The question therefore from a cultural relativism perspective is, through which culture’s lens is the â€Å"common good† being viewed. If in the prevailing culture whistle blowing is a common and acceptable practice an atmosphere where the advantages of whistle blowing has been cultivated. According to Trimborn (2012) the most important of the advantages is that whistle-blowing often ends long-standing wrongdoing that would have otherwise continued. Organisations who encourage a whistle blowing culture, promote transparent structure and effective, clear communication. More importantly, whistle blowing can protect the organization’s clients. Trimborn (2012) cites the example of a hospital employing a number of negligent staff members. Other, more ethically inclined, employees would need to bring such issues to the hospital’s attention, protecting the organization from possible lawsuits or severe mishaps resulting in a patient’s demise. In the case of clear workplace violations of health and safety regulations, or breach of employment laws, workers are protected and their rights upheld. With regard to research or technical issues, whistle-blowers may cite internal memos and other documentation to prove doubts existed about a product (such as a cover- up of certain medication dangers) or that false research results were knowingly published. Whistle-blowers often highlight safety concerns regarding cars or other products, thus protecting an unsuspecting public. Whistle-blowing upholds the law, protects many from the impact of wrongdoing, reveals the truth and prevents further wrongdoing. In cultures where whistle-blowing is frowned upon devastating consequences can be visited upon the whistle blower. Trimborn (2012) reveals some of whistle blowing’s negative repercussions. Firstly, it can bring termination of the whistle-blower’s services by the organization. It would be difficult to remain, no matter how justifiable the decision to reveal illegalities and no matter how much the revelations would actually benefit others. Secondly, big-time revelations could bring down the organization causing everyone to lose their jobs. Thirdly, the whistle-blower can get stigmatized as â€Å"disloyal† and be discredited in some way. Fourthly, the organization and sometimes colleagues may exact some form of revenge on the whistle-blower in retribution. Thus, the whistle-blower is somehow blamed for the wrongdoing and fired without an opportunity for vindication. In communities, the whistle-blower and family may be subject to hostile treatment, viewed as acting out of self-interest with a view to gaining advancement at others’ expense. In conclusion, unless culture, practice and the law indicate that it is safe and accepted for whistle-blowers to raise a genuine concern about corruption or illegality, workers will assume that they risk victimisation, losing their job or damaging their career. They even risk being cast out or ostracised by the communities they emanate from. In cultures where a safety net for whistle-blowers exists the whistle-blower is marked as a person of integrity who has the backbone to do what is right no matter what. It lets others know the whistle-blower can be trusted to deal with others honestly. It also limits the effects of intimidation tactics designed to sway whistle-blowers from taking appropriate action where necessary (Young: 2007).