Classified Public Whistleblowing
How to Justify a Pro Tanto Wrong
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20317648 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eric R Boot (0000-0002-5030-8455, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 541-567 |
| Publication date | 2017-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Theory and Practice (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0037-802X • E-ISSN: 2154-123X |
| Publisher | Philosophy Documentation Center (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.5840/soctheorpract20178213 |
| OpenAlex | W2742746225 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Though whistleblowing is quickly becoming an accepted means of addressing wrongdoing, whistleblower protection laws and the relevant case law are either awkwardly silent, unclear or mutually inconsistent concerning public disclosures of classified government information. I remedy this problem by first arguing that such disclosures constitute a pro tanto wrong as they violate (1) promissory obligations, (2) role obligations and (3) the obligation to respect the democratic allocation of power. However, they may be justified if (1) the information disclosed concerns grave government wrongdoing, (2) alternative channels of disclosure are first exhausted and (3) steps are taken to minimize harm
Applied philosophy · Epistemology · Political science · Sociology · Corporate Law and Human Rights · Ethics in Business and Education · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |