Whistle Blowers Duska Summary

Duska’s acceptance of Whistle-Blowers Central to Duska’s discussion is his altered concept of loyalty. I however, do not find his line of argument completely convincing. And had Duska’s concept, of what loyalty is, been different in regard to the employee-employer relationship; then his entire contention that whistle-blowing does not require moral justification would be unfounded. Considering that loyalty is defined by; devotion, allegiance, obedience and faithfulness, it seems completely reasonable that an employee should feel such sentiment and natural devotion to the firm which employs him. Especially, for those who consider this source of their livelihood; as a full-fledged career rather than simply a job.

Misguided Loyalty Duska argues that loyalty to a corporation is in fact misguided loyalty, and he further explains that objects of loyalty

This means that those who invest capital cannot be found liable for more than they have ventured; should the company fail or be sued. This also means that corporations can be afforded similar rights and obligations as those enjoyed by groups of persons. These include ability to contract and enforce contracts, to own property, to sue and be sued under both criminal and civil laws. And further that corporations can be continued in perpetuity with shares and control transferred accordingly. Ultimately corporations are provided rights and given respect similar to persons. As such, it is completely reasonable in my view for employees to feel loyalty and respect for the organization and place of their daily work; in addition to the loyalty they feel toward their fellow coworkers. This is the natural basis of the collective sense of loyalty. And why I must agree with James Roche of General Motors, and view whistle-blowers as disloyal and detrimental to work place cohesion and