discussion

Jeffrey Wigand put his economic future as well as coworkers and his family at risk to expose the tobacco companies. Would you have done the same thing share your thoughts?

      According to Lindblom (2007) the ethical debate on whistleblowing concerns centrally the conflict between the right to political free speech and the duty of loyalty to the organization where one works. To sum it up, it is the sense there is no moral dilemma of whistleblowing.

           A whistle-blower is a person that will see that something is being done on a job or an organization that is unethical. I am fully aware of this because I have seen this happen before. According to Griffith (2018) a whistleblower in protecting the integrity of the U.S financial system; role of journalists and others who work insiders in exposing potentially bad acts inside a corporation.

            In the case of Dr. Wignad, he was right on what he did. Dr. Wignad was at risk of this tobacco being expose to his family and it was putting his own family at risk well working on the job. He also was displaying the definition of moral intelligence that was needed for him to have. Dr. Wignad however, decided to denounce the chemical that was being use and the chemical manipulation that the company was carrying out to make these cigarettes to help encourage them to be addicted to tobacco that could cause harm to them. When he did this, he did not care about the money he was making at the time nor his position he had. He just wanted to make sure that no harm came to anyone including his co-workers. 

             When I sit back and think about this, I would of have done the same things to. This is very unethical for any organization to do just so that they can sell more cigarettes and could not care what type or harm or affect that it could have on their consumer and their employees. To me, Dr. Wigand should true leadership to take this on to protect everyone in his family and at his workplace.