Whether Joelle should reveal the companies misgivings or not is a question of ethics and therefore very open to interpretation. Ethical principles dictate that an action is defined as good if it does more good (Martineau, 1886). There is thus the need to look at the action and its outcome. The case involves several ethical principle namely: Consequence, duty, principle of rights, principle of virtues and universality. The consequences of the action are quite numerous.
On the positive side, the money got from the disposal is used in improving the young peoples lives, on the other hand the hazardous chemicals may cause untold harm to the children who play near the dump site. Joele as an employee is bound by duty to the organization to maintain all its secrets. On the contrary, social moral statutes dictate that she should avert any harm to the general society if in a position to (Martineau, 1886).
The case also presents a clash of virtues since in both disclosure and non-disclosure there is some bad and good involved. Though the case presents a lot of controversy, it is my opinion that disclosure in this case is the correct step. The chemicals are quite toxic, furthermore the organization cannot claim that this is the only option that its left with in disposing the toxic substance. The chemicals not only affect humans but also the environment and their effects are long term.
Furthermore, there is a high likelihood that the legislations do not allow for dumping of dangerous chemicals in that manner. In summary, the case presents a situation where a bad is done to achieve a good. The determinant moral principle is this case is universality. The danger posed by dumping the hazardous chemicals cannot be offset by the good it brings. In conclusion, Joele be doing more good in exposing the organizations bad deeds.
Martineau, J. (1886). Types of Ethical Theory. Glasgow, Macmillan and co.