Introduction:

In April 2010, Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst for the United States Army, leaked classified footage to WikiLeaks showing a US helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007, resulting in civilian casualties, including two Reuters journalists. Manning argued that she released the footage out of concern for transparency and accountability regarding the actions of the US military. The question arises: Did Manning act out of loyalty to the United States when she released the footage in the video? Do her actions constitute a moral or immoral case of whistleblowing? In this Case Analysis, I will argue that Manning did not act solely out of loyalty to the United States but rather out of a sense of duty to uphold societal principles of transparency and accountability. Furthermore, I will contend that her actions represent a morally justified case of whistleblowing, supported by the contractarian tool.

Discussion of Contractarianism:

Contractarianism, as discussed by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls, posits that moral principles derive from a hypothetical social contract agreed upon by rational individuals seeking mutual benefit. According to this perspective, moral rules are those that rational agents would agree to abide by in a hypothetical initial position of equality, where individuals do not know their own place in society or their own personal attributes.

Applying contractarianism to Manning’s case, we can analyze whether her actions would be justified under the terms of a hypothetical social contract. In this context, individuals would likely agree to principles of transparency and accountability within institutions, including the military, as these principles serve to protect individual rights and prevent abuses of power. Manning’s release of the classified footage can be seen as an attempt to uphold these principles and hold accountable those responsible for unethical behavior within the military.

Evaluation using the Contractarian Tool:

Using the contractarian tool, Manning’s actions can be evaluated based on whether they align with principles that rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical social contract. From this perspective, Manning’s decision to leak the footage can be considered morally justified. Rational individuals in the initial position would likely agree to support whistleblowing in cases where it exposes significant harm or wrongdoing within institutions, as this serves the collective interest in upholding transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, Manning’s actions can be seen as fulfilling her role as a responsible citizen within a democratic society. Contractarianism emphasizes the importance of individuals fulfilling their roles and responsibilities within society to maintain social order and promote the common good. Manning’s whistleblowing can be interpreted as an exercise of her role as a citizen to hold powerful institutions accountable for their actions, thereby contributing to the overall well-being of society.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Chelsea Manning’s release of classified footage can be morally justified through the lens of contractarianism. By upholding principles of transparency and accountability within the military, Manning’s actions align with what rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical social contract aimed at promoting the common good. Therefore, her decision to leak the footage constitutes a morally justified case of whistleblowing, demonstrating a commitment to societal values over narrow loyalty to the military institution.