ABSTRACT
In small-scale, direct interactions between people, the statement that wrongdoing results in obligations of remedy requires little argument. Obligations of remedy are not optional excellences, and their violation does result in moral blameworthiness. An obligation that is defeasible and may be outweighed by countervailing moral reasons, such as avoiding harm to others and to the public interest. In the specific case of the obligation to disclose government wrongdoing, government agencies ought to make it possible to voice dissent internally in a meaningful way and without consequences, and states could introduce comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation. One may have an obligation of remedy that may be most effectively fulfilled by whistleblowing, but one is allowed to use this manner of fulfilling one’s obligation only if one has complied with the three justifying conditions of whistleblowing. The three conditions are: public interest condition, minimize harm condition, and ultimum remedium condition.
