Danny\'s Decision the Central Ethical

Danny's Decision

The central ethical issue is whether or not Danny should leak the information to Cross about the fraudulent contracts. Danny would need to break the law in order to give Cross the information, but the information pertains to others in government breaking the law. Danny has a responsibility to the American people in his role to uncover such information, but he also has a responsibility to the American people to protect the national security interest.

One of the key issues is whether or not Danny has other channels available to him to blow the whistle on the fraudulent contracts. He may in fact have legal means to resolve the issue, rather that resorting to illegal means through contact with Cross. Indeed, Danny appears to be covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act, meaning that he can disclose the fraud to others within government and receive protection against action from his superiors (Whitaker, 2007). Thus, Danny may have other alternatives that lessen the ethical quandary involved.

3) Danny can go to Cross, keep the information to himself or go through other government channels as an internal whistleblower. We can deduce that those within his department will be negatively affected by the first and third options. Danny will suffer consequences with the first option because the activity is illegal. The second option will result in fewer negative consequences for Danny but he will have failed the American people in his duty. The third option will allow him to meet his duty and mitigate negative consequences to himself. The other key stakeholder is national security. The fraudulent contracts are more potentially damaging than the leak of them, so the second option is most damaging. The public as a stakeholder would be more harmed by the first and second options, the first because the controversy would undermine public confidence in government and the second because the taxpayers would be subject to ongoing fraud.

4) Under rule utilitarianism, Danny should consider the consequences of his action if he were to follow the rules all of the time (Mautner, no date). He is guided by the boundaries of his job, which obliges him to consider both his duty to the American people and to national security. The expected consequences, in general, are the protection of national security with the occasional fraud or abuse being allowed. Under this rule, Danny would need to trust that, on average, the results are going to be positive. With whistleblower protection in place, however, Danny can now protect both national security and the taxpayer's interest, though Danny cannot assume the system will work as intended, given recent cases of government abuse of state secrets privilege to protest itself (Edmond, 2007).

Under deontology, however, choices are morally required, forbidden or permitted. For Danny, the dilemma is that the two choices he has identified are both forbidden by law. The third option - to be an internal whistleblower - is permitted. Indeed, it is morally required, because it is part of his duty to the taxpayers. Even if he were to suffer adverse consequences (i.e. If there was no whistleblower protection) he would still be obligated to blow the whistle on the fraud internally, such that national security would also be preserved.

5) the most ethical decision is to go above or around his supervisors through official or unofficial channels.

He should be a whistleblower, but his duty to national security demands that he not go through Cross for this. He may face sanction from his superiors, but he has protection under the law as a result of his obligation to identify such frauds.