The importance and criticism of whistleblowers in identifying dangerous, illegal, or unethical practices within organizations is on the rise in today’s world. A whistleblower is an individual who provides actionable information to the necessary parties. In other words, legal whistleblowing is defined as providing information where someone possesses a reasonable belief detailing some kind of unlawful practices occurring within an organization to a competent authority having jurisdiction to receive such evidence. From the mechanical domain of aerospace engineering to the realm of academics, healthcare, and government information systems, people have confronted the painful ethical question, “Should I voice my concerns about a wrongdoing or stay quiet for the sake of my career, safety, and personal life?” The ethical dilemma is what defines whistleblowing, an act so powerful yet so perilous when grappling with the dichotomy of the singular self vs. society, personal allegiance vs. societal truth, and silence vs. true bravery. The aim of this paper is to analyze the phenomenon of whistleblowing from a virtue ethics point of view, integrated with other ethical perspectives like consequentialism, deontology, and social contract theory. It applies the Dominican values of truth, justice, compassion, partnership, and community to determine whether choosing to be a whistleblower constitutes a morally praiseworthy act or whether silence can ever be ethically justified.
The focus of this inquiry centers on a simple but profound question: Why do some morally good individuals choose to blow the whistle while others, equally good, do not? How do these choices diverge among individuals who share common morals when working in situations that seek to quiet down dissent? The ethical dilemma goes beyond reporting improper conduct to establish which responsibilities are primary among employment duties and professional codes and employee relationships alongside public obligations.
To investigate this, the paper examines three high-profile whistleblowers from distinct domains: Curtis Ewbank from the aerospace industry (Boeing), Rebekah Jones from public health (Florida’s COVID-19 data), and Babak Babakinejad from academia (MIT Media Lab). These individuals were selected for their diversity across sectors, the seriousness of the misconduct they exposed, and the national or institutional impact of their disclosures. Their cases represent a wide spectrum of whistleblowing experiences—from threats to human life, to public data manipulation, to ethical complicity in elite institutions. This variety helps prevent selection bias and strengthens the paper’s broader analysis of whistleblowing as a cross-sector ethical phenomenon.
Whistleblowing brings forth complex ethical challenges as a person balances conflicting obligations and responsibilities of potential harm. The ethical consideration in question is whether employees or insiders have an ethical responsibility to reveal conduct that is immoral, illegal, or poses a threat to safety by organizations, especially when such reporting comes at a personal cost.
The Dominican tradition emphasizes five core values that guide moral decision-making: truth, justice, compassion, partnership, and community.
Truth reflects the pursuit of intellectual honesty, transparency, and fidelity to reality, especially when truth is inconvenient or suppressed.
Justice entails the active commitment to fairness, the protection of rights, and advocacy for those who are wronged or marginalized.
Compassion requires empathetic understanding and a willingness to alleviate suffering, including recognizing the emotional costs borne by both whistleblowers and those affected by wrongdoing.
Partnership highlights mutual accountability, collaboration, and the ethical responsibilities shared between individuals and institutions.
Community emphasizes belonging, responsibility to the common good, and the idea that individual actions affect and are accountable to the wider social whole.
These values are rooted in the Dominican Catholic intellectual tradition, which seeks to integrate faith, reason, and social engagement in pursuit of the common good (
This moral dilemma is very apparent with Boeing and the 737 MAX tragedies. Two separate crashes, Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019, claimed 346 lives cumulatively. Employees at Boeing had fomented safety issues regarding the MCAS software system well in advance of the accidents. Some of these employees, like engineer Curtis Ewbank, became internal whistleblowers trying to advance safety policy and met with opposition. Others, such as John Barnett, a former quality control supervisor who openly testified on some production’s falling standards, reportedly suffered tremendous aversive discrimination and committed suicide.
Boeing, it seems, was told several times but still chose to put profitability and speed-to-market first before fixing life-threatening design flaws. The ethical issue now changes from an institutional one to a more personal concern: When does a personal moral duty override professional loyalty? What is the right course of action when voicing a concern that may not only endanger one’s career but also result in alienation, harassment, or psychological trauma?
In contrast, other whistleblowers like Rebekah Jones, who took issue with how COVID-19 was manipulated in Florida, or Babak Babakinejad, who blew the whistle on environmental neglect at MIT, acted with disregard for institutional and personal consequences in the name of public health and environmental advocacy. Each of these individuals demonstrates what can only be described as moral courage. But for each known whistleblower, there are probably dozens who remain silent, not out of collusion, but out of fear, perceived futility, or misplaced allegiance to an all-powerful institution.
Before The ethical dilemma is made more complicated with the intersection of multiple systems of values and responsibilities:
1) Integrity vs. Loyalty: Employees are known to feel a sense of loyalty toward their employers and peers, which makes it impossible to turn against the employer’s trust even when something bad is happening.
2) Self-preservation vs. Public Good: On the other hand, the self-preservation, safety, and mental health of the whistleblower are often at stake. If something is wrong and misconduct occurs, self-preservation can be harmful to the public.
3) Professional Code vs. Organizational Culture: Within certain professions such as engineering, medicine, or finance, one can find ethical codes of practice that require the reporting of certain unsafe or illegal procedures and practices. However, organizational cultures often discourage these disclosures.
4) Justice vs. Obedience: There is a conflict of morals when it comes to obeying dominant authority and pursuing justice. When the internal reporting systems are highly biased or flawed, capturing justice becomes rather difficult.
Each of these responsibilities is conflicting. Such dilemmas require responsibility with the ethical reasoning that follows duties (deontology), responsibilities referring to results (consequentialism), reciprocal duty (social contract theory), and, the main approach in this paper, the character and development of one’s morals (virtue ethics).
The choice to apply Dominican values to whistleblowing is especially relevant in contexts that emphasize moral character formation, social justice, and the integration of personal virtue with public responsibility. Rooted in a Catholic intellectual tradition, these values prioritize ethical truth-telling, care for the vulnerable, and accountability to the broader human community—making them well-suited for evaluating acts that challenge institutional wrongdoing for the sake of societal good. Unlike frameworks that rely solely on abstract principles or outcome calculations, the Dominican tradition brings a relational and human-centered perspective that considers conscience, integrity, and the well-being of others as inseparable. However, other traditions also offer valuable insights. Confucian ethics, for example, may discourage whistleblowing when it disrupts social harmony or loyalty to authority, while Islamic moral philosophy includes the imperative of amr bil ma’ruf wa nahi ‘an al munkar (commanding good and forbidding wrong), which supports truth-telling to uphold justice. Similarly, utilitarianism would assess whistleblowing based on its potential consequences for the greatest number, while Kantian deontology would support it as a moral duty regardless of outcome. These perspectives highlight that while cultural and philosophical frameworks differ, many uphold whistleblowing as a moral response to injustice when truth, fairness, and community well-being is at stake.
To understand the ethical dilemma in its full depth, it is essential to map out the broader context and the various stakeholders affected:
1) Stakeholders:
2) Facts and Context:
3) What Is at Stake for Every Stakeholder?
When individuals blow the whistle, multiple interest groups are involved, while different duties, risks, and effects affect them. The analysis of moral responsibilities in whistleblowing depends on determining what each important party stands to gain or lose. The following analysis investigates stakeholders at the whistleblowing level alongside their ethical risks and the social impact they generate.
The Whistleblower
While whistleblowing is often morally celebrated, it is not without serious risks and ethical complications. One significant concern is the potential for false or misguided accusations, whether intentional or based on incomplete understanding of a complex situation. Even well-intentioned whistleblowers may misinterpret data, misjudge motives, or lack the full context needed for fair assessment—leading to unjust reputational harm, internal disruption, or legal consequences for innocent parties. Additionally, the truth in organizational settings is rarely clear-cut; it is often embedded in technical details, conflicting interests, and layers of bureaucracy. Determining what constitutes wrongdoing, especially in cases involving policy ambiguity or moral gray areas, can be difficult. Whistleblowers themselves may also be influenced by personal grievances, stress, or bias, further complicating objectivity. These challenges highlight that while whistleblowing plays a vital role in exposing harm, it must be approached with discernment, responsibility, and robust institutional safeguards to ensure fairness for all involved.
The whistleblower is someone who is most likely to come under pressure due to the consequences of the report made. They stand to lose their well-being and livelihood in their personal and professional lives, which may change for better or worse depending on the fallout.
The Organization (or Institution)
The organization that is the subject of the whistleblowing and is directly affected by the disclosure of misconduct is likely to suffer severe reputational damage, lose considerable finances, and face legal actions that directly affect the organization in question.
The Public and Society
The public is one of the primary stakeholders in whistleblowing concerns, especially when it deals with public health or safety or any other matters regarding the environment. Society and its members are often jeopardized when corruption, fraud, or negligence is exposed by a whistleblower.
Third-Party Stakeholders
Outside of the stakeholders, there are other people who are impacted by the whistleblowing event, directly or indirectly. This includes non-profit entities, advocacy groups, businesses, and even the wider social community.
Virtue ethics, as advocated by Aristotle, focuses on the moral agent instead of the consequences of the action or the duty that is to be performed. Rooted in Aristotle, virtue ethics places greater weight on an individual’s character and virtues than on moral rules or consequences (
A whistleblower like Babak Babakinejad, who blew the whistle on MIT’s environmental cover-up with their radioactive waste, is the embodiment of an Aristotelian courageous and just person. Even with personal and institutional prestige at stake, Babakinejad acted out of virtue, prioritizing the safety of the MIT community over his career incentives.
On the other hand, those who silently choose to do nothing are lacking one or more of these virtues, not because of a moral flaw but because of hesitancy or conflicting allegiances. Silence is not defended under “virtue ethics”; rather, it is an open invitation for moral scrutiny: it inquires if a person is moving toward some morally commendable ideal. “According to “virtue ethics,” there are some ideals like excelling for the greater good or devotion to the greater good, but that can allow for full development of humanity (
Utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, determines whether an action is ethical and for what reason. Does it lead to the greatest good for the largest number of people? (
As explained through the lens of Immanuel Kant, deontology places significant focus on moral obligation and a person’s duty to follow a universal principle irrespective of the outcome. Deontological ethics maintains that at least some actions are morally obligatory irrespective of the circumstances regarding the welfare of human beings (
The theory of social contract explains ethics as part of an unspoken agreement among citizens to observe common values and safeguard their collective interests. It posits that individuals coexist in a society according to an agreement that specifies ethical and political conduct (
The Dominican values of truth, justice, compassion, partnership, and community provide a moral framework that considers the virtue of the individual alongside civil responsibility, which deepens ethical decision-making (
Moral Options and Implications
Option 1: Whistleblow Internally (Report Through Official Channels)
This approach incorporates the raising of issues in the case, as with compliance officers, ethics boards, and supervisors within the organization, before going public. At face value, this strategy seems to cause the least disturbance and is the most organizationally considerate. Moral Strengths: Respects the institution’s ability to self-correct, thereby upholding the principle of partnership. Aligns with prudence, a virtue that values wise judgment and calculated risks. Commitment to truth and justice is demonstrated without public exposure. Potential Limitations: Many internal systems are organized to guard the institution rather than bring about justice. Retaliation is common for whistleblowers even when reporting through internal channels, such as demotions, isolation, and surveillance. If an issue is urgent, such as a public health concern, internal action may impede crucial interventions. Case Example: Some engineers in the Boeing 737 MAX case did try to internally raise concerns, but these warnings were dismissed or downplayed, which greatly contributed to the tragic outcomes. This case showcases the commendable yet ineffective internal whistleblowing in cultures of denial or risk aversion.
Option 2: Whistleblow Externally (Expose the Issue Publicly)
Reaching out to the media, public, or regulators directly is termed external whistleblowing, which usually happens when internal attempts prove futile or when the risks are simply too high to wait. Moral Strengths: There is strong alignment with Dominican values of truth, justice, and community. Refers to the virtue of courage, especially in the face of personal loss. Might result in prompt corrective action, policy changes, or increased public attention. Potential Risks and Costs: May violate nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements, opening doors to potential legal actions and consequences. Increases the likelihood of severe personal and social consequences like unemployment, mental health problems, legal issues, and professional ostracization. Carries the risk of causing additional damage, such as reputational damage to uninvolved coworkers or public distrust towards vital institutions. Case Example: Rebekah Jones’s internal attempts at rectifying COVID-19 data were met with dismissal, resulting in her facing external whistleblowing. Although her actions intensified and ignited a nationwide discourse around the issue, she also endured significant repercussions both personally and professionally. This showcases the burden of moral leadership alongside personal hardships.
Option 3: Remain Silent
Choosing to remain silent can result from fear, loyalty, uncertainty, or futility. Regardless, this is a common choice and deserves ethical scrutiny quite intensely.
Moral Justifications: Preserves personal credibility and professional well-being. Upholds institutional silence and organizational order. Might show the trait of steadfastness or belief in change from within. Moral Challenges: Violates Dominican principles of truth and goes against the deontological requirement to prevent causing harm. Enables injustice, especially when remaining quiet sustains systemic wrongdoing. Inflicts enduring consequences of moral betrayal, defined as unwanted shame and psychological torment endured by individuals who are aware of inaction yet unable to justify forgiveness for failure to act. Ethical Evaluation: The virtue ethics approach contends silence is morally justifiable when danger is imminent or when there is no presenting evidence a whistleblower possesses. Regular silence over acts of misconduct within an organization suggests a lack of required bravery and justice and does not exemplify ethical supremacy. Remaining silent might shield an individual but will almost never honor the social contract or the common good.
Option 4: Find Alternative Avenues (Whistleblowing Through Third Parties or Anonymously)
Incorporated in the middle ground is the option to report a complaint anonymously to monitoring agencies, NGOs, or through whistleblower systems, including SecureDrop and protected reporting hotlines. Ethical Benefits: Conveys self-protection while informing, hence balancing honesty and discretion. Conceals identity while informing those in charge without facing personal backlash. Works effectively when powerful, traumatic feelings prevent overt action. Ethical Concerns: Limits verification, claim follow-up, and dialogue restoration abilities. Perceived as unreliable and spiteful when the source is concealed. Lacks moral exemplar impact; uninspiring without identity revelation. Virtue Ethics Evaluation: Justifiable on virtue grounds without support from moral exemplars. Puts forward a partial virtue claim. Justifiable on prudence, demonstrating low moral courage. Acknowledges those in more vulnerable situations, even if ethically questionable.
Ethical decisions are not made in isolation. A number of contextual elements define the range of options that can be deemed ethical:
Case Analysis and Argument
Case 1: Boeing and the 737 MAX Disasters
Boeing 737 MAX accidents in 2018 and 2019 claimed the lives of 346 individuals. Later, it was uncovered that employees and engineers had flagged safety worries regarding MCAS software weeks before the accidents. These warnings, however, were dismissed by senior management. Curtis Ewbank, an engineer at the company, pointed out the safety issues with the software and advocated for better safety systems, claiming that his efforts went to waste. He later became a prominent whistleblower, unveiling the truth in congressional hearings. Ethically, from a deontological approach, claiming his concerns justified stopping further harm to life validated his decision. From a virtue ethics perspective, Curtis transcended organizational boundaries and showcased profound individual values by exhibiting bold, righteous, and honest behavior, which greatly contributed to regulatory change and shone light on the corporation’s risk-centered ethos.
Application of Dominican Values:
Case 2: Rebekah Jones and the Florida COVID-19 Data
A data scientist for the Florida Department of Health, Rebekah Jones, was removed from her position in 2020 after she refused to “censor” COVID-19 data for political reasons. Following her termination, she developed an independent data platform and claimed the state was censoring the information. Jones’ external whistleblowing sparked national media attention and initiated inquiries. Later, she was charged with unwarranted access to state systems, which generated further controversy. Through virtue ethics, Jones’ actions are framed as moral courage and truthfulness, particularly due to the risks involved. She has a clear duty under deontological theory to maintain scientific accountability and public health. However, some criticisms from consequentialist perspectives acknowledge the public nature of her method, exposure, and deeply divided opinions about her credibility.
Dominican Values
In 2019, MIT Media Lab received special scrutiny concerning the donation’s acceptance from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Babak Babakinejad, a former researcher, publicly accused the institution of ethical complicity and misrepresentation. Though ostensibly non-violent, his actions uncovered profound failures in leadership, moral vision, and systems. Babakinejad wrote open letters that he gave to the media and campaigned for institutional reform. He was ridiculed and cut off socially but maintained his stance around moral accountability. His efforts were framed within virtue ethics. From a deontological standpoint, he bore the duty of confronting survivor and community silencing: witnessing unjust fostered hypocrisy. Undoubtedly, his advocacy led to high-profile resignations and ethically controversial scrutiny of academia in the media.
Dominican Values:
Comparative Analysis
Across these cases, several moral patterns emerge:
Ethical Dimension |
Ewbank (Boeing) |
Jones (COVID-19) |
Babakinejad (MIT) |
Type of Harm |
Physical death |
Public health |
Institutional ethics |
Initial Action |
Internal report |
External whistleblowing |
Open letters, public engagement |
Key Virtue |
Courage |
Integrity |
Justice |
Dominican Focus |
Justice, Truth |
Compassion, Truth |
Truth, Community |
All instances demonstrate that whistleblowing depends on specific circumstances. What counts as the “right” action depends on having access to proof and the level of danger that requires attention, alongside the protective measures available. The shared quality among these whistleblowers emerges through their display of ethical virtue within moments of great risk.
In the cases and theories discussed, I argue that embracing whistleblowing in an organization is to live a moral life. Virtue ethics suggests that character and habit bind individuals to seek to be persons of truth, courage, justice, and compassion, rather than following rules or weighing outcomes as mere calculations (
Critics of whistleblowing state that it is often narcissistic, divisive, or overly idealistic (
Whistleblowing is not just an unexpected act of defiance; it is the result of moral development, a journey through which people obtain the virtues that enable ethical choices and constructive action. Starting from Aristotle and continuing with Aquinas, moral philosophers stressed that virtue is achieved through the accumulation of habits, instruction, and guidance. As noted by Aristotle, moral virtue is the result of repetitive activity. One shows courage by doing courageous acts (
When individuals possess a well-developed moral sense, they become capable whistleblowers. Dominican ethical beliefs understand conscience as an objective moral guide that receives its direction from community involvement combined with biblical reading and rational thought analysis. A strong conscience empowers people to handle ethical dilemmas by behaving according to principles which upholding dignity and compassion and justice.
Institutions of higher learning’s ethical imperative is to develop students’ ethical sensitivity and the capacity for responsible moral leadership. An educational Dominican institution inspired by Veritas utilizes the truth to nurture such principles, which can be cultivated elsewhere. Below are suggestions educational institutions can adopt to improve moral guidance.
1) Ethical Literacy Across the Curriculum: Ethics shouldn’t only be the preserve of philosophy or a theology class. Ethically informed reasoning should permeate every area of study like business, nursing, or science. Health science students can address ethical issues related to patient privacy, public health, and resource allocation.
2) Case-Based Learning and Simulations: Students wrestle with complex, multi-faceted issues in reality through simulations and case studies. Students practice ethical decision-making in safe, reflective spaces where they rehearse moral conflicts like those of whistleblower dilemmas.
3) Mentorship and Faculty Modeling: While instructors ought to teach ethics, they need to practice what they teach. Teachers strive to model basic integrity, humility, and social concern in their actions. Mentorship relationships also allow students to explore ethical challenges in dialogue with trusted guides.
4) Cultivating the Courage to Question: Educational organizations must support their students who question established norms or respectfully question authority figures while freely expressing ethical concerns. The practice of cultivating student dissent can be achieved by establishing forums along with protecting academic freedom and by making it clear that dissent represents moral good.
Aside from education, organizations should develop an ethical culture that appreciates moral courage and supports whistleblowers. Not addressing such considerations usually creates problems for people and for the organization.
1) Protection and Non-Retaliation Policies: Organizations must create adequate frameworks for whistleblower protection that guarantee anonymity, legal aid, and non-retaliation. Such policies are not only mandatory for legal compliance but also for upholding ethical standards of a society.
2) Ethics Training and Values Integration: Typically, ethics training is mandatory on a yearly basis but not viewed as a value-adding endeavor. It is an expectation that the training is engaging, interactive, scenario-based and aligned with the core values of the institution. Employees need to be forced to deal with the concepts of loyalty, harm, and moral action.
3) Leadership by Example: Organizational leaders are the ones who define the moral standing of the organization. Cultures that shed blame on whistleblowers rarely exist because in a culture where leaders admit their mistakes and listen to what people tell them, whistleblowing becomes a mark of loyalty. Unlike betrayal, it is drawn as loyalty to the truth.
In societies that observe democracy, whistleblowers are protectors of accountability and truth. They constitute a form of control over power and remind everyone from enterprises to governments that it is not acceptable to trade truth for convenience or profit. Society branding and marketing is not the only area that requires a paradigm shift; literature about whistleblowers should transform. Mankind should not demonize this selfless service; instead, restore dignity to speak. The way whistleblowers tell their story is captured in media, political debate, and education. A whistleblower should be in protective arms where they are safeguarded and nurtured.
Circling back to the question that this paper seeks to address, “to be or not to be a whistleblower,” the analysis confirms that to be a whistleblower is to act in compliance with the utmost moral standards. It is a decision that frequently comes at a personal loss, but one that maintains the dignity of people and the integrity of systems. Still, the choice is never simple. It is not simple because it requires, at the very least, wisdom, courage, and the backing of a morally sound group. As demonstrated in the previous chapters of this paper, whistleblowing is morally justifiable only when it is motivated neither by revenge nor by narcissism, but rather by a personal character etched in justice, compassion, truth, and love for the collective well-being of society.
Whistleblowing within the frameworks of Dominican values and virtue ethics is more than a form of protest; it is a deep witness to moral deeds. This paper reveals, through the application of various normative ethical theories and case studies, that those who challenge authority do so not only legally but morally. Their courage calls each individual to reflect: what am I becoming? And when the moment presents itself, will I be able to act for what is right, even in solitude? Ultimately, moral courage is not one elusive act of heroism; it is a consistent practice. In order to authentically and justly navigate a world riddled with silence, we must all hone this virtue.
This paper is conceptual in scope and does not include empirical data or field research. Its arguments are based on ethical theory and case analysis rather than direct observation or statistical evidence. As such, the applicability of the virtue-based framework, particularly the integration of Dominican values, remains untested in real-world organizational settings. Future research should empirically examine how these ethical frameworks influence actual whistleblowing behavior and outcomes across different industries and institutional cultures.