“Collateral murder” is about a video from a helicopter gun sight showing explicit footage of lethal force being used on civilians unprovoked. The video also shows you the audio during the incident which allows viewers to actually hear what the gunmen in the helicopter were saying. This video was released by a whistleblower, Manning, and it exposes the truth of what war is really like. Since the video was released, it has become a controversial topic on whether this was immoral or just an act of war. Did Manning make the right choice or was she disloyal to the U.S? With the war going on now with Russia and Ukraine, I feel this is an important and relevant topic even now. In this Case Analysis I will argue that the contractarianism tool shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.
Vanderkerckhove’s and Commer’s article “Whistleblowing and Rational Loyalty” discussed various points of view on the debate over whistleblowing and loyalty. He uses various viewpoints from several different ethicists. Duska brought up an interesting point. He claims that “employee loyalty to companies is a category mistake.” What he means is that companies aren’t something to which people can be loyal. Because there is no loyalty to the company, there is no actual conflict between the duty to loyalty and the duty to whistleblower. He does not regard a company or business as a person, and thus loyalty is not required, because the main incentive for employees to work hard and be “loyal” is to be rewarded or compensated. For example, suppose someone works for a company and has been there for five years, but she is offered a job at a different company that pays twice as much. It is very likely that the individual will accept the higher paying job and not feel bad about it because that’s how businesses work. So you’re not loyal to the company; you’re loyal to the money they give you. When presented with a better option, that “loyalty” vanishes. Vanderkerckhove now claims that whistleblowing and loyalty are not incompatible and that there is no contradiction between the two. He believes that an employee who is loyal to their company is upholding the company’s goals and codes of conduct. Essentially, any rules or regulations that are broken or violated, even by higher-ranking officials, should be reported or exposed. Whistleblowing, he believes, should be institutionalized. Basically, checks and balances are used to keep companies in check. While reading, I found myself mostly agreeing with Vanderkerckhove’s point of view. I agree that being loyal to a company means being loyal to its ideals and mission rather than the company itself. In the Collateral Murder video, unarmed civilians were killed and children were harmed. Manning chose to bring attention to this travesty by blowing the whistle and informing the public of the injustice that had occurred. I believe Manning was very loyal to the United States by exposing the truth despite knowing the consequences. I chose the contractarian tool because I believe social contracts are important in both the article and the case study. Contractarianism is a moral theory that holds that morality is based on an unspoken social contract between all members of society. When you watch the Collateral Murder video, you can hear the conversation between the passengers on the helicopter. After gunning down the men suspected of being armed, you can hear them talking about the number of kills they got, almost like getting a high score on a game. I believe this is related to Contractarianism because there is a social contract at work here. The fact that they were at war made the soldiers somewhat desensitized to the harm they were inflicting. The social contract comes into play because the US defense secretary issued statements essentially defending the men in the video’s decisions. He goes on to say that the men are put in perilous situations in a split second, and that while this was a tragic mistake, it was still a mistake. It seemed to be understood by the majority of military personnel that their actions and dialogue were understandable or even warranted. The video also includes the defense for the dialogue that was heard. It is stated that the soldiers were not behaving in an obscene manner as if they were psychopaths, but rather as they were removing dangerous elements to themselves and the greater good. This was clearly an understood ideal, as multiple others could be heard speaking and appearing to be bragging about and applauding the act of killing. Because everyone understands that killing is a part of war, acts like this are morally acceptable from a contractarian viewpoint. Manning was correct to expose the truth, and her actions were a moral example of whistleblowing. It informs the public about what acts of war really look like.
The following paper is titled “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace” and was written by Julinna Oxley and D.E. Wittkower. The paper expands on the ideas presented in the previous paper regarding the relationship between whistleblowing and loyalty. In recalling Vanderchkove’s assessment of loyalty, he explained that because whistleblowing and loyalty are both organizational needs, he introduces the concept of rational loyalty to resolve the moral quandary. As stated in the preceding paragraph, this concept essentially states that loyalty to a company is actually loyalty to the company’s mission statements, goals, and code of conduct, So in order to have loyalty properly, one must implement an official way to blow the whistle or bring certain morally questionable decisions or situations to light. Oxley and Wittkower take a different approach to loyalty. Their argument was that loyalty is not something that can be obligated on anyone. They argue that showing favoritism towards someone out of care or concern is an expression of loyalty rather than a duty or virtue required by a contract. The relationship between whistleblowing and loyalty is altered by this definition. My interpretation is that because loyalty is not an obligation, but rather an expression of care for another, in order to show loyalty to a company or workplace, there must be a caring and compassionate relationship between employer and employee. In most cases, loyalty is not something that is automatically established just because you work for them. Sort’ve how the saying goes respect is earned, loyalty is also earned by forming genuine bonds between employees and their employers. In order for employees to show more loyalty, it makes sense to create more relationships on a personal level with employers, instead of the company itself. People are more likely to show loyalty to people they feel are loyal to them or care for them. Their argument actually makes a lot of sense. I mean think about, when you think of loyalty, what comes to mind first? I immediately think of my friends and family. Obviously this is because I care for them and have had time to establish a personal relationship with them that’s been building for years, but what about my boss and coworkers. I’ve worked at the same job for about 5 years now. I could quit tomorrow and not feel a thing. Why is that? Am I wrong for thinking this? I believe the reason is that at the end of the day it’s understood that a job is a job. If a better opportunity comes along, not many people would fault you for seeking it. I know my superiors personally, but even so, if a better job comes along I would leave with no hesitation and I’d expect them to understand because after all this is a business. I feel Oxley and Wittkower’s definition of loyalty is accurate in some ways, but I feel Loyalty is subjective and interchangeable depending on the circumstance. The Contractarian tool can be put into play here. The social contract between employees and employers is basically you scratch my back I scratch yours. What I mean by that is an employee is willing to come to work and abide by the rules and regulations as long as they are adequately compensated. If the employers pay them they’re fine, but say a better opportunity comes along, most will jump at that opportunity. From a Contractarian standpoint Morally this is acceptable because generally people think of their job as just that, a job. Basically it’s understood by members of society that jumping at a better opportunity is okay. The fact that this concept is accepted by the vast majority of people makes it morally right according to Contractarianism. Oxley and Wittkower definition of loyalty wouldn’t work in this sense because even with the sense of loyalty a person might feel for their employer, a chance for increased pay or better benefits will for the most part sway employees regardless of personal relationships and most wouldn’t fault you for doing so. I don’t think Manning was using this definition of loyalty when she chose to blow the whistle. Manning risks everything, even her own life to expose the truth of what war is really like. I’d like to believe Manning held America in such high regard that she could no longer sit idly by while her country committed such savagery. While I don’t think Manning had Oxley and Wittkower thinking in mind, I still agree with some of their concepts on loyalty. In order to show loyalty to a company or workplace, there must be a caring and compassionate relationship between employer and employee. I feel this type of thinking will only lead to positive outcomes going forward for not only our government affairs, but also other workplaces.
In 2007, a US Army helicopter attack killed 12 people, including two Reuters journalists This event was leaked by Chelsea Manning and was titled as “Collateral Murder.” According to a military official, they were unaware that journalists were among those present. The Army assumed it was simply fighting insurgents, but the fact that they never publicly released the incident shows there could be alternative motives especially with all of the other classified info she released. All in all, I believe Manning was right to expose the government and their ways of conducting war. The murders commited was a tragedy and she knew that what the governement was doing by coverning up the murders of inncocent civilians had to be exposed. The people deserve to know the truth and it’s sad to see someone be punished for exposing incidents where our government was in the wrong. I agree with Vanderckhove that being loyal is not being loyal to the person or object itself, but actually what they stand for. The government has a perception of being the “good guys”, but with people standing up and whistleblowing, exposing the truth, we the people can see that our government is not perfect. In fact they’re probably the farthest thing from it. Manning showed extreme loyalty towards her country by blowing the whistle and I know her conscience is clear. Her loyalties seemed to be more so for the public than any of her peers or employers. I believe she chose to do this solely on her own moral compass, not for any specific person. She felt a responsibility to the public more so over her military superiors. Whistleblowing should be rewarded not punished. Exposing atrocities such as this should always be the morally correct thing to do.