Moral Identity In The Insider

People make numerous decisions in a day, and each decision is an outcome of a selection made among multiple choice. In the process of making a decision, people will frequently question themselves: who am I and which identity would I consider best as a representation of myself. Ways people viewed themselves are the key factors that could affect their final decisions.

The Insider, a critically acclaimed drama film, is based upon a true story, and provides examples to express the concepts for right-verse-right dilemma. In the film, Jeffrey Wigand is formerly a Director of Development of a large tobacco company. He was fired because of his integrity; he believed that the company should not use a component that may possibly cause lung cancer to

He has to decide whether he should weigh the value of his professional integrity more than his personal one. As a Director of Development, he knows and contributes to the secret information of the company that should not be disclosed to the public. When he signed the corporate confidentiality agreement, he made a promise to the company that he would not reveal anything related to the company’s secrets. Wigand does value his professional integrity highly and want to observe the agreement by saying: “I don’t believe that you can maintain corporate integrity without confidentiality agreement” (1999). He does not intend to violate the agreement. However, he sometimes feels compelled to reveal the fact since it is against the public interests. In this case, he has to give up one of his standards. Both sides of the case are right and ethical; the only thing that will impact the decision is how Wigand views himself. In “Defining Moments,” Badaracco (1997) states that part of the interest parties has to be sacrificed by saying “… choices between right and right are fraught with personal risk. In these cases, when managers do one right thing, they leave other right things undone. They feel they are letting others down and failing to live up to their standards.” (p.5). It insists that there isn’t any decision that will satisfy all stakeholders. Each decision can only fit part of the needs. Whoever makes the decision will feel that they lose a part of themselves. In Wigand’s defining moment, he chooses to stand up for the great majority of people and to view himself as an individual with care-base thinking. This decision leads him to a position that brought along many negative consequences. In “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility,” Bok (1980) states that “their careers and their ability to support themselves and their families may be unjustly impaired” (p.129). When Wigand