Short Paper PDF

Preview

Summary

journal...

Description

Christos Kitras ENGR 482-968 September 20, 2019 Whistleblowing: To what Extent is it Morally Right or Wrong?

In mid 2013 Evan Vokes, a former engineer with TransCanada made mainstream media headlines after testifying in front of a Canadian senate committee alleging that the major Canadian energy corporation was cutting corners with regards to following national standards for pipeline construction. Vokes, who was one of the engineers assigned to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, claimed TransCanada had “a culture of non-compliance that ignored legally required regulations.”1 This claim came amid the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline planned to be used for the transportation of tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast of the United States.2 In his testimony, Vokes claims that the company had a history of claiming to comply with Canadian and American regulations put in place to ensure the safety of the environment when constructing pipelines but did not in fact follow said regulations with the aim of fast tracking projects and cutting down on costs. TransCanada, who eventually terminated Vokes’ employment, claimed they did not fire Vokes for raising concerns about the safety of the pipeline and declined to give a reason for his termination “out of respect for his privacy.”1 Vokes said in his interview with Fox Business that the bottom line of his decision to come forward with the news was a result of the fact that the company was essentially cheating in their safety practices and lying about it. Vokes reasoning to expose the company’s ill practices is aligned with Kantian ethics which is focused on the idea that an action is deemed to be the right action if and only if it has been performed with good intentions, regardless of the eventual consequences of that action. Kantian ethics is summarized with several ideas that justify an action as being moral–these include the will, duty, maxim, and categorical imperative of the action. The will is the idea that there is an intangible force that moves us through life and governs our life’s disposition as well as the choices we choose to make on a daily basis. Our duty, according to Kantian ethics, is the universal law in which we are obligated to follow as free, rational, dispassionate beings. Maxim is a subjective principle that governs our actions, regardless of whether or not the action affects other. It is the idea that we should or ought to do something, usually something that only benefits ourselves as individuals. Finally, Kantian ethics holds the conception of a categorical imperative, which is how we relate our subjective maxims to the idea of following a universal law. These Kantian principles can apply directly to Vokes’ case to justify his decision to bring TransCanada’s practices to light with a moral basis. Vokes believed it was his duty to speak up against his former employer, as he felt obligated to do the right thing. There could be several factors that affected his desire to speak up such as the universalization test ,which is commonly described in Kantian ethics. This test holds that if everyone were to do the right thing then there would not be a question to whether or not an action is wrong. Similarly, if everyone were to lie and cheat, then the validity of decisions would always be questioned and the world would fall into chaos as no one could ever know if they can or cannot trust each other. The fact that Vokes

Christos Kitras ENGR 482-968 September 20, 2019 chose to speak up is combined with the Kantian idea that we must treat people with dignity as oppose to a mere means to an end. It could be said that Vokes did not base his decision on the possibility of benefitting from the outcome of sharing this knowledge, such as publicity or some sort of recognition, but instead because it is in fact the correct thing to do. This is true because if everyone were to not comply with regulations set in place by governments, it undermines the authority of a governmental institution and compromises society as a whole. In this situation, Vokes followed the norm of disclosing the truth and being transparent whereas TransCanada was not, in order to avoid the violation of the dignity of both the Canadian and American government, as well as the industry and general population of Canada and the United States. Another way to approach the motive behind Vokes disclosure of TransCanada’s non-compliance is to assess the implications of his decision based of a moral utilitarianism standpoint. Moral utilitarianism is centered on the idea that moral correctness is determined by the outcome of an action. More specifically, utilitarianism holds that the right thing to do is the action that will bring about the most good in terms of its net consequences. In this case we can apply rule utilitarianism, which states in a more general form that following guidelines for certain situations will eventually lead to the most benefit for society. In this case we can assess Vokes’ decision as a preventative measure, which could potentially ensure that by whistleblowing an environmental disaster could be avoided and competing companies can have a level playing field for projects in the relevant industry. Following rule utilitarianism, Vokes did the right thing in that he allowed for it to be known that the company was breaking the law. This is different from case utilitarianism, which is more subjective as it considers all factors, which could determine whether or not his actions are to be deemed as correct because of the possible controversy involved from analyzing the situation from multiple standpoints. While it could be debated that Vokes violated the trust of TransCanada by exposing their ill practices and not playing on the company’s team, we can ultimately see how whistleblowing can be considered the right thing to do in this circumstance. From a Kantian and Rule Utilitarianism point of view, his actions lead to a net benefit for society a long with a selfless mentality where no personal advantage is achieved on Vokes’ behalf, but instead a sense of morality as he did his duty to the parties involved.

Works Cited

Christos Kitras ENGR 482-968 September 20, 2019 1

“Whistleblower Accuses TransCanada of Poor Pipeline Practices.” Fox Business. 13 June 2013. Fox Business. 18 Sept. 2019 https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2477701059001/#sp=show-clips.

2

Peeples, Lynne. “Big Pipeline Operator’s Business ‘Is Organized Crime,’ Whistleblower Says.” HuffPost. 11 June 2013. HuffPost. 19 Sept. 2019 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/transcanada-whistleblowerpipeline_n_3415701....