DeGeorge thinks that "corporations have a moral obligation not to harm." Which of the following would be one of his criteria for morally permitted whistleblowing?

• A. Documented evidence exists that would convince a reasonable and impartial observer that one's view of the situation is correct but that serious harm is unlikely to occur.
• B. The employee must reasonably believe that going public will not create the necessary change to protect the public and is worth the risk to oneself.
• C. The employee should report a firm's actions that will do serious and considerable harm to others to her supervisor, and keep reporting all the way up to board until the actions are corrected.
• D. The employee must first report wrongdoing to the external auditor before going public.

Answer: (C)

This question tests how moral whistleblowing is justified when preventing serious harm to others. DeGeorge argues that a corporation has a duty not to harm, and if wrongdoing that could cause significant harm is detected, the ethically permissible route emphasizes using internal channels first to address the problem, escalating to the highest levels if needed.

The option described fits best because it requires reporting to the immediate supervisor and then continuing up the chain to the board until the issue is corrected. This reflects a principled approach: take responsibility within the organization, pursue remediation through established governance structures, and act with enough seriousness to prompt change without jumping to public disclosure prematurely. It balances loyalty to the firm with the obligation to prevent harm to others, recognizing that internal corrections are often the most effective and appropriate first step.

Other approaches don’t align as well. Documented evidence showing that harm is unlikely wouldn’t justify whistleblowing, since the moral drive is to prevent serious harm, not to expose concerns where risk is minimal. Believing that going public won’t create change and is worth the personal risk shifts the focus to personal cost rather than the duty to rectify harm through proper channels. Reporting to an external auditor before internal escalation bypasses the governance path that DeGeorge emphasizes as the preferred route for addressing misconduct.