Need an argumentative essay on Analysis for Paradoxes of Whistleblowing. Needs to be 3 pages. Please no plagiarism.Download file to see previous pages... Answer 2 Boisjoly case is landmark case of whi

Need an argumentative essay on Analysis for Paradoxes of Whistleblowing. Needs to be 3 pages. Please no plagiarism.

Answer 2 Boisjoly case is landmark case of whistleblowing because of many paradoxical issues and assumptions that would not normally be included within the wider ambit of standard whistleblowing acts. Boisjoly was part of the group who were involved in the development and running of Challenger, the spaceship. The act of whistleblowing had widespread ramifications on the future of whistleblower, especially the personal and professional security, including financial instability when it could result in loss of job. The goals of external stakeholders like general, involuntary participants vis-a-vis media, political campaigners, action groups etc. is to report wrongdoing and prevent harm that could be potentially harmful for public at large. Most importantly, the organizational goals embody the welfare of the co-workers, including organizational leadership and practice of ethical considerations within the business operations and administration. Thus, while the act would be morally justified, Boisjoly was faced with huge dilemma and conflicts as it could put his future plans and security to great risk. Answer 3 The standard theory’s preconditions, including that of evidences of probable harm and that the act or policy could would result in serious harm if not revealed are designed to give credence to the belief that harm is imminent. They are used to justify morality of the act of whistleblowing. The five preconditions of standard theory: the organizational policy or act would result in serious harm. the whistleblower has identified and reported the issue and its probable harm to authorities concerned. he has followed all internal procedures to report the same. he has empirical evidence of the probable harm that could result with the act. and revealing the facts would prevent the harm are not fully followed in the case. The theory is less effective than new theory because the conditions have inbuilt paradoxes that contradict the fundamentals of whistleblowing which are intended to reveal wrongful acts of organizations. They not only put the whistleblower to great personal and professional risk but the paradox of missing harms considerably reduces the impact of a wrongful act. Indeed, while the first three conditions are focused on fulfilling the bureaucratic procedures within the organizations, the last two conditions become key issues for whistleblowing. They are also full of contradictions as the harmful results can be interpreted differently and raise doubts within the broader precincts of moral .justification of the act. Thus, the inconsistencies within the conditions often weaken the genuine cases of whistleblowing and increase the risks to the whistleblower. Answer 4 Complicity theory is better than standard theory as it promotes the act of whistleblowing on the justification of wrongdoing rather than emphasis on the future harm. The complicity of wrongdoing is powerful motivation for people to become morally conscientious and report wrongdoing per se. It basically relies on the fact that voluntary member believes that his work would contribute to the wrongdoings of the legitimate organization.