The loyal agent argument against whistle-blowing.

1
The loyal agent argument against whistle-blowing.

• An employee is an agent of his or her employer.
  An agent is a person engaged to act in the
  interest of another person, who is known as the
  principal. Employees are legally agents of their
  employers. As agents, they are obligated to work
  as directed, to protect confidential information,
  and, in general, to act in the principals best
  interest. Although the whistle-blower might
  appear to be a disloyal agent, the obligations of
  an agents loyalty has limits. Whistle-blowing,
  therefore, is not incompatible with being a loyal
  agent. Two limits on the obligation of agents
  are especially important.

2

• An agent has an obligation to obey only
  reasonable directives of the principal, and so an
  agent cannot be required to do anything illegal
  or immoral.
• The obligations of an agent are confined to the
  needs of the relationship. Thus, an employee is
  not obligated to do anything that falls outside
  the scope of his or her employment.

3

• The meaning of loyalty. The law of agency aside,
  whistle-blowing is not always an act of
  disloyalty in the ordinary meaning of the word.
  If loyalty is viewed as a commitment to the true
  interests or goals of an organization, rather
  than merely the following of orders, then many
  whistle-blowers are loyal employees.
  Sociological studies have shown that
  whistle-blowers are often loyal employees who
  choose to expose wrongdoing in the belief that
  they are doing their job and acting in the best
  interest of the company. In the book Exit,
  Voice, and Loyalty, Albert O. Hirschman holds
  that speaking out (voice) and leaving (exit) are
  the main options for dissatisfied organization
  members and that those who exercise the voice
  option are generally more loyal than those who
  decide to exit.