In 2010, Chelsea Manning, an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army, disclosed classifiedmilitary documents and video footage to WikiLeaks. The leaked information contained adisturbing video of a U.S. helicopter attacking and causing the death of civilians in Baghdad.Manning was arrested, convicted of espionage, and sentenced to 35 years in prison beforehaving her sentence commuted. She stated that she disclosed the information to ignite adiscussion in the public regarding U.S. foreign policy and military behavior. It is a complicatedsituation that brings up various issues regarding whistleblowing, allegiance, and the balancebetween the public’s right to information and national security worries. In this Case Analysis, Iwill contend that Manning acted in a way that showed loyalty to the United States by revealinggovernment misconduct from a consequentialist ethical standpoint. Her whistleblowing wasmorally justified based on the positive consequences and greater good that resulted from theinformation being made public. Vandekerckhove introduces this idea of “rational loyalty.” It’spretty interesting. He basically reconceptualizes loyalty not as blind allegiance to anorganization’s physical aspects or hierarchy, but as loyalty to the organization’s explicit mission,values, and goals. He argues that “the object of rational loyalty is not the physical aspects of thecompany, buildings, executives, boards, hierarchies, colleagues, but the explicit set of missionstatement, goals, value statement and code of conduct of the organization which is judged aslegitimate.”So, let’s apply this to Manning’s case. We could analyze her actions as potentiallydemonstrating rational loyalty to the stated values and ideals of the United States, rather thanloyalty to the military hierarchy or government officials. The U.S. talks a big game aboutdemocracy, human rights, and ethical conduct in warfare. By exposing potential war crimes andhuman rights violations, Manning could be seen as acting out of loyalty to those statedAmerican values and principles, even while being disloyal to specific individuals or institutions.It’s kind of a different way of looking at loyalty.Vandekerckhove goes further. He argues that rational loyalty allows for and even demandswhistleblowing in cases where an organization’s actions diverge from its stated values andmission. He writes, “If she finds herself in a situation where organizational behavior diverts fromits explicit mission, goals and values, then rational loyalty, loyalty to the explicit mission, goalsand values, would demand of her to blow the whistle.” From this perspective, Manning’swhistleblowing could be interpreted as an act of rational loyalty to American ideals and anattempt to correct goal displacement within the U.S. military. It’s a bit of a mind-bender, but itmakes sense when you think about it.Now, let’s use the consequentialist ethical framework to assess Manning’s actions through thislens of rational loyalty. We’ve got to consider the overall outcomes and balance of positive andnegative consequences. The information leaks did result in some harm to the operations of theU.S. Military and its diplomatic relationships, in the term that much is certain. However they alsoinitiated discussions on U.S. Policy, enhanced government transparency and accountability andpotentially prevented future wrongdoing by exposing past transgressions. These disclosuresplayed a role in changing perception of the Iraq War. Might have hastened the U.S. Troopwithdrawal. It’s a situation, for sure.Viewed from a perspective that aims to maximize societal well being, the positive outcomes ofheightened transparency, accountability and prevention of future human rights violations likelyoutweigh the temporary setbacks to U.S. Interests. Mannings actions ultimately benefited thegood by bringing information to light and promoting American democratic values centered on aninformed citizenry. Therefore when viewed through a lens of loyalty and analyzed usingconsequentialist principles Mannings whistleblowing can be ethically defended. It’s not a matter.There is a valid argument to be made.Oxley and Wittkower present a care ethics approach to loyalty in business contexts. It’s prettyfascinating stuff. They argue that loyalty should be understood as an expression of care andconcern rather than blind obedience. They contend that “loyalty is a form of care and concernfor others, and as such, loyalty cannot be obligated, either by the corporation, or morally, allthings considered.”Applying this care-based conception of loyalty to Manning’s case, we can analyze her actionsas potentially demonstrating care and concern for the American public, Iraqi civilians, and evenU.S. service members by exposing misconduct that put them at risk. Manning stated that shehoped the leaks would spark “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.” This suggests hermotivations aligned with a care-oriented desire to prevent harm and improve conditions, ratherthan mere opposition to authority. It’s a different way of looking at her actions.Oxley and Wittkower also discuss this concept of “critical loyalty,” where an employee seeks toreform problematic practices out of genuine care for the organization and its stakeholders. Theyargue that “By understanding loyalty as an expression of care, we are able to explain theintuition that loyalty is neither simply a duty nor a rational requirement of the pursuit of mutualself-interest.” Manning’s whistleblowing could be interpreted as an act of critical loyalty -attempting to push the U.S. military to better uphold its ethical standards and stated values. It’skind of a paradox, being disloyal to be loyal, but it makes sense in this framework.Now, let’s use consequentialism to assess Manning’s actions through this care ethics lens.We’ve got to weigh the outcomes in terms of harm prevention and care for affected parties. Theleaks did put some U.S. personnel at risk in the short term. That’s a fact. However, they alsoprevented harm to civilians by exposing misconduct, potentially saved lives by affecting publicopinion on the war, and demonstrated care for democratic values of transparency. Therevelations showed concern for Iraqi civilians harmed by U.S. actions, and for American citizens’right to know about their government’s conduct. It’s a complex balancing act.Manning’s act of whistleblowing can be morally justified from a utilitarian standpoint thatprioritizes increasing overall happiness and reducing pain. Although it caused temporarydamage, it probably averted more serious future harm and pain by revealing and discouraginghuman rights abuses. It showed concern for a diverse group of individuals, such as civilians,service members, and the American public. The benefits of saved lives, enhancedaccountability, and increased democratic oversight are greater than the drawbacks of temporaryharm to military operations. While not flawless, it could be considered the most favorable resultgiven the challenging circumstances. In conclusion, when examining Manning’s situationconsidering rational and care-based loyalty, and evaluating the outcomes using a utilitarianethical perspective, I believe Manning’s actions were ethically valid as she acted out of loyalty toAmerican values. The ideas of rational loyalty and critical loyalty enable us to see Manning’sactions as a way to make the U.S. military adhere to its professed values and improve troublingpractices. The benefits of enhanced transparency, accountability, and prevention of wrongdoingoutweigh the immediate downsides from a consequentialist viewpoint.However, it must be acknowledged that this role comes with its own disadvantages and possiblecriticisms. It depends on a broadened interpretation of loyalty that could be challenged by some.Legitimate worries exist regarding the risks associated with unauthorized disclosure of sensitivedata and the importance of finding a middle ground between openness and protecting thecountry. A non-consequentialist ethical framework centered on duty or rules could come to adifferent outcome. The Manning situation underscores the intricate moral dilemmas ofwhistleblowing and the perpetual conflict between government confidentiality and the public’sentitlement to information in a democratic society. It’s a challenging problem to solve, but it’s