Skip to main content
Log in

On complicity theory

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The received account of whistleblowing, developed over the last quarter century, is identified with the work of Norman Bowie and Richard DeGeorge. Michael Davis has detailed three anomalies for the received view: the paradoxes of burden, missing harm and failure. In addition, he has proposed an alternative account of whistleblowing, viz., the Complicity Theory. This paper examines the Complicity Theory. The supposed anomalies rest on misunderstandings of the received view or misreadings of model cases of whistleblowing, for example, the Challenger disaster and the Ford Pinto. Nevertheless, the Complicity Theory is important for as in science the contrast with alternative competing accounts often helps us better understand the received view. Several aspects of the received view are reviewed and strengthened through comparison with Complicity Theory, including why whistleblowing needs moral justification. Complicity Theory is also critiqued. The fundamental failure of Complicity Theory is its failure to explain why government and the public encourage and protect whistleblowers despite the possibility of considerable harm to the relevant company in reputation, lost jobs, and lost shareholder value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davis, M. (2003) Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing, in: Shaw, W.H. (ed) Ethics at Work, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davis, M. (2003) Whistleblowing, in: Lafollette, H. (ed) Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 539–563.

    Google Scholar 

  3. DeGeorge, R.T. (1990) Business Ethics, Macmillan, New York, pp. 200–216.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boisjoly, R.M. (1991) The Challenger Disaster: Moral Responsibilities and the Working Engineer. in: Johnson, D.G. (ed) Ethical Issues in Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, pp. 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Geller, A. (2004) More Workers Accusing Their Firms of Fraud, Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville, Florida, Nov. 23, sec. F.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. David Kline.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kline, A.D. On complicity theory. SCI ENG ETHICS 12, 257–264 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0025-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0025-8

Keywords

Navigation