LNAT Practice Test Essay – Are whistleblowers morally justified in breaking the law to expose corruption? Explain your stance.

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Are whistleblowers morally justified in breaking the law to expose corruption? Explain your stance.

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

Whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing corruption, fraud, and other forms of wrongdoing in various sectors, including government, corporations, and non-profit organizations. However, the act of whistleblowing often involves breaking the law, as individuals may have to disclose classified or confidential information to bring the truth to light. This raises the question of whether whistleblowers are morally justified in breaking the law to expose corruption. This essay will explore the ethical considerations surrounding whistleblowing and evaluate whether such actions can be morally justified.

The Moral Justification for Whistleblowing

Proponents of whistleblowing argue that individuals have a moral obligation to expose corruption and wrongdoing, even if doing so requires breaking the law. The primary basis for this argument is the principle of utilitarianism, which states that actions are morally justified if they promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. By exposing corruption, whistleblowers can help to protect the public interest, promote transparency, and hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.

Another argument in favor of the moral justification for whistleblowing is the concept of “lesser evil.” In some cases, the harm caused by breaking the law to expose corruption may be significantly less than the harm caused by allowing the corruption to continue. As such, whistleblowers can be seen as choosing the lesser of two evils in their pursuit of justice and transparency.

Additionally, proponents argue that whistleblowers play a vital role in maintaining a healthy democracy and a just society. By exposing corruption and other forms of wrongdoing, whistleblowers can help to ensure that powerful individuals and organizations are held accountable for their actions and that the rule of law is upheld.

The Moral Critique of Whistleblowing

Critics of whistleblowing argue that breaking the law to expose corruption is morally unjustifiable, as it undermines the rule of law and the social contract between citizens and their government. They contend that individuals have a moral obligation to respect and adhere to the laws of their society, even when those laws may protect corrupt practices or individuals.

Furthermore, critics argue that whistleblowing can have negative consequences for both the whistleblower and innocent third parties. Whistleblowers often face retaliation, including job loss, legal repercussions, and social ostracism, which can have a devastating impact on their lives and well-being. Additionally, the act of whistleblowing can inadvertently harm innocent individuals who may be associated with the accused party or organization, causing collateral damage in the pursuit of justice.

Balancing Moral Considerations

Determining whether whistleblowers are morally justified in breaking the law to expose corruption requires a careful balance of the potential benefits and harms associated with such actions. While whistleblowers can play a crucial role in promoting transparency and accountability, their actions can also have unintended consequences and undermine the rule of law.

One potential solution to this ethical dilemma is the implementation of stronger legal protections and support systems for whistleblowers. By providing a clear and secure legal avenue for individuals to report corruption and wrongdoing, society can encourage whistleblowing while minimizing the need for individuals to break the law in their pursuit of justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the question of whether whistleblowers are morally justified in breaking the law to expose corruption is a complex and multifaceted issue. While whistleblowers can play a crucial role in promoting transparency and accountability, their actions can also have unintended consequences and undermine the rule of law. By implementing stronger legal protections and support systems for whistleblowers, society can strike a balance between encouraging the exposure of corruption and upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law.