Question

According to Chapter 2, ethicists such as Manuel G. Velasquez (2011) argue that whistle-blowing is justified if three conditions are satisfied. One condition is that there is strong evidence that the organization is doing something that is hurting or will hurt other parties. What are the other two conditions? (Select both answers.)

A. The employee has made a serious but unsuccessful attempt to resolve the problem through internal channels.
B. Whistle-blowing is reasonably certain to prevent or stop the wrongdoing.
C. The employee has suffered personal harm as a result of the wrongdoing, such as the loss of a promotion, a substantial decrease in salary, or physical injury.
D. The wrongdoing involves members of a minority group or affects individuals granted specific rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Answer 1

A). The employee has made a serious but unsuccessful attempt to resolve the problem through internal channels.

B). Whistle-blowing is reasonably certain to prevent or stop the wrongdoing.

Step-by-step explanation:

As per the given description, the other two conditions that justify the whistle-blowing is demonstrated through options A and B. The first one involves that 'the employee made significant but futile attempt to resolve the conflict through internal channels' that would affect the sentiments of the other parties as the organization is involved in something detrimental and still the preference given by employee to internal channels justifies the whistle-blowing(to halt or critique the wrong action by employee). Another justified reason could be that it is 'logically proven to avert or halt the misdeeds or wrongdoings of the organization' that would help prevent any further damage to other parties.