This paper examines whether an MBA employee who overhears a private conversation about Enron's fraudulent accounting practices should blow the whistle, drawing on John Boatright's conditions for justified whistleblowing. The paper evaluates the real and potential conflicts of interest facing the employee, then assesses the decision through three moral frameworks: Kantian ethics, utilitarian theory, and virtue theory. It concludes that both Kantian duty and utilitarian calculations support disclosure, while virtue theory permits rationalization in either direction. The analysis ultimately endorses whistleblowing, accompanied by protective precautions and appeal to a reputable authority.
The paper demonstrates comparative normative analysis: taking a single ethical dilemma and evaluating it against multiple competing moral theories to show how different frameworks produce different (or convergent) conclusions. This technique is central to applied ethics writing and requires the student to understand each theory's internal logic, not just its conclusions.
The paper opens by framing the scenario — an MBA employee who overhears incriminating conversations at Enron — and establishing the epistemic problem of acting on hearsay. It then invokes Boatright's conditions for legitimate whistleblowing before moving through three moral theories in sequence. The conclusion integrates all three perspectives into a practical decision. The structure is linear and argument-driven, progressing from factual context through theoretical evaluation to a reasoned verdict.
The MBA employee at the center of this scenario is not fully aware of what is going on; all he has are assumptions and guesses — no actual proof. He has had prior suspicions about several transactions, finding the company's accounting practices suspect, and has already raised those concerns with the CFO. He was assured that everything was fine and that management knew what it was doing.
Then, in the garden, he overhears the CFO speaking with a high-ranking representative from Arthur Andersen. They discuss the practice of inflating Enron's earnings and transferring debt to partners. The conversation touches on the sustainability of that practice and the possible consequences if it were discovered. At one point, someone says: "It's really too late. We either make it work or the jig is up, and we try to contain the damage. In either case we all know what we should do with our stock."
Because all of this is hearsay — overheard indirectly — the employee ultimately has only conjecture to go on. He may be correct in suspecting wrongdoing, but he does not have absolute proof.
On one hand, the employee certainly can report what he heard. In fact, he is in a better position than almost anyone else to do so, precisely because he is a member of the organization. Ideally, an employee should first report possible corruption to the employer, since he works for the good of the organization and should therefore approach the employer rather than leaking information publicly. The problem, however, is what happens when the employer — as in this case — is already aware of the misconduct and the public is suffering as a result.
In the Enron scandal, countless individuals and companies were at risk of financial ruin due to Enron's conduct. The United States as a whole faced serious harm. The employee has already approached the CFO and been reassured; he nonetheless retains substantial suspicions. The question, then, is whether he should persist and take his concerns public.
Boatright's second condition for justified whistleblowing holds that the public must be given substantial information that genuinely deserves notice. There is no question here that this is critical data affecting a significant number of individuals and businesses. Not only is the information new to the public, but it also concerns misconduct of a substantial order. Enron's stock was dropping while investors were urged to continue buying — until the share price finally fell to less than a dollar. Thousands of people lost their jobs as a result of the scandal; others lost their pensions and entire life savings, while shareholders lost the money they had invested once Enron went bankrupt. The ramifications were enormous, and disclosing these suspicions could prevent much of that calamity.
The employee has already approached the CFO — satisfying a core requirement of the whistleblowing process — and been told that all is fine. He still has substantial reason for concern. Some ethical approaches would urge him to approach a different authority outside his employment, though that source must be someone in a position of authority and need not be the media. The real and potential conflicts of interest he faces are significant: reporting could jeopardize his job, expose his family to risk given the powerful corporate interests involved, and place him in direct opposition to colleagues who have reassured him. At the same time, failing to report means remaining complicit — by silence — in harm to thousands of investors and employees.
Kantian moral theory differs from utilitarianism in that it does not depend on end results — namely, the production of happiness — to determine right action. Instead, it operates as a categorical imperative: a principle that applies to all situations regardless of outcome. What one ought to do in one situation, one ought always to do. A person should not lie, for example, regardless of circumstance. The ethics must be unconditional — admitting no exceptions — and universal — applicable to all rational beings.
Applied here, the employee must report what he overheard out of a sense of duty rather than mere inclination for that action to carry genuine moral worth. The reasoning is straightforward: he would not want to suffer financial ruin through fraud; he would therefore not want others to suffer it either; and he would, accordingly, want disclosure of fraud to be a universal law. According to Kant, he should therefore report what he overheard.
Knowing the end results, the decision is to blow the whistle — but with careful steps taken to ensure self-protection and appeal to a reputable authority, as Boatright recommends.
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.