I found the Eric's lecture on whistle-blowing incredibly relevant to our group scenario. Whistle-blowing is basically the disclosure of misconduct an employee or member of an organization.
The common etiquette for whistle-blowing is as follows
1. try to keep within the system
2. express objections
3. be tactful
4. keep supervisors informed (unless the supervisors are part of the issue)
5. be accurate
during the lecture we learned that whistle-blowing is appropriate for a person when great risk is involved and when the organization or immediate superiors have already been informed of that persons objections.
We also learned about supererogatory obligations, where whistle-blowing becomes beyond the call of duty, and is not required morally. In such situations usually the personal cost is too great for an employee to disclose information.
This relates directly to our Scenario A topic in which John Connor has information which he can disclose to Cyberdyne, but could lose a promotion or even be fired for his troubles. On the contrary, the only thing John gains by telling Cyberdyne is a better friendship/relationship with his old coworkers. In our situation I believe that John's path to whistle-blow is a supererogatory obligation, where the risks greatly outweigh the benefits.
- Mingchen
I agree. I don't believe that John Connor has any obligations to disclose his usage of his code to Cyberdyne anyway, since he owned his own code and never signed an agreement to hand the ownership to them. If Cyberdyne did own the code, however, he would be unethical to steal their property and use it for his company. If his new company knowingly used code that a different company owned, I believe whistleblowing would be a good way to approach the issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that John is situated on a career achieving decision as well. The risks may not have to outweigh the benefits, John could operate as a "whistleblower" for himself. John could potentially fight for his software, and maybe receive career success if owned. Opportunities may open for his intellectual property if the software is considered his. This may result in a group-think hostility between John and his current company, but maybe the risks aren't outweighing the benefits if John takes my recommended course of action(to fight for the software as his own).