Information on any moral misconduct within an organization can be released by either an active or a past employee to point out the ills being perpetrated. In the event of whistleblowing, there must be an incident taking place against the interests of the public. Duska argues that loyalty is not the responsibility of workers in an organization. Hence, whistleblowing is allowable when an organization goes against the interests of society. Moreover, there is no duty accrued by firms as a result of loyalty. Since no one is obliged to be loyal to an organization, whistleblowing is hardly attached to any moral dilemma. Moral justification is not required during whistleblowing. Negative stigma and myriads of workplace barriers find their way in organizations when loyalty is given the priority.
When an individual opts to whistle-blow against an undesirable event occurring in an organization, it tends to go against the narrow desires of the concerned organization. Employees are usually expected to remain silent over certain sensitive issues as part of loyalty. Duska’s arguments give a lot of support to whistle-blowers. However, Duska also mentions that the activity of whistle-blowers is perceived as a serious form of disloyalty for companies that have hired them. An employee should not be labeled as a disloyal person when he/she whistle-blows confidential and harmful occurrences at the workplace. Since the duty to be loyal to an organization does not exist according to Duska, moral justification should not be hindered at all (Gensler, Spurgin & Swindal, 2004).
According to Duska’s proposition, employees are not obliged to be loyal to their workplace organizations. The main aim of a business entity is to generate profit. This implies that an organization can go at any length to make a profit even if the welfare of employees or the immediate community is put at risk. Moral agents are exhibited by a business organization in the course of its operations. It is indeed true that moral agents constitute a company. Each of the individuals can play a crucial role in conveying this form of loyalty.
Reporting any form of misconduct in an organization does not imply that a person is disloyal. By blowing a whistle, an employee cannot be described as disloyal. Duska is keen to illustrate that the act of being loyal should follow a reciprocal process. However, this may not be necessarily true. Being loyal to your nation does not display any input of a moral agent. When an individual becomes loyal to another person, the latter can’t reciprocate. Besides, there is no moral justification for an individual to be loyal at the expense of exposing oneself to danger. Duska seems to have changed the inherent meaning and application of loyalty among employees of an organization. Moral justification is indeed required in whistleblowing contrary to the views held by Duska. His argument complicates the whole issue of whistle-blowing.