Chelsea Manning and Whistleblowing.

On July 12, 2017, an Apache helicopter fired on a group of people in a suburb of Baghdad. The footage of the event, which Chelsea Manning, a United States Army intelligence analyst, later leaked, and Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, comments on, captures the build-up, the aerial attack, and the chaotic communications between the pilots and the ground forces. Manning’s leak of the video ignited a heated debate over the questions of loyalty and duty. The leak revealed actions that many considered disturbingly unethical, while others believed it was an important exposure of unethical behaviors. Opponents of Manning might claim that her leak of the video was a betrayal of her loyalty to the military institution, and a violation of secrecy. Her supporters, on the other hand, might assert that it demonstrates her care for the public, and fulfills an important obligation to guard against excesses from the authority. In her decision, Manning appeared to place her care for human lives above a blind loyalty to the United States military hierarchy. This case brings forward a challenge: should loyalty to a nation be measured by strict adherence to orders, or can it be expressed through a deep concern for the welfare of its people? Using Wim Vandekerchve and M.S. Ronald Commer’s notion of “rational loyalty,” and Julianna Oxley and D.E. Wittkower’s perspective of loyalty as an expression of care in business relationships, we can see that loyalty involves more than obeying orders; it includes an emotional obligation to care for people. In this case analysis, I will argue that the ethics of care shows us that Manning acted out of care for human dignity and public safety, and her actions constitute a moral case of whistleblowing.

Analysing Using Vandekerckhove and Commers, and the Ethics of Care.

Vandekerckhove and Commers introduce the concept of “rational loyalty” in organizations. They suggest that loyalty is not necessarily about following orders blindly. Loyalty does mean being true to a set of values and a mission statement that ultimately benefits the collective. More simply, rational loyalty calls for judgement when actions taken by those in authority no longer conform to the stated purposes of the organization. By extension, loyalty to a nation means concern for the citizens and accountability for institutions. Reconsidering Manning’s decision through this lens implies that her release of the video is thought out, value-based action rather than irresponsible child’s play. Manning did not simply follow orders. Rather, she considered the situation and concluded that the video depicted conduct contrary to what the ethical obligations of the United States owed to its citizens. In essence, she appeared to be motivated by an internal pledge to the well-being of the public. To remain silent about what she witnessed would go against her inner commitment to the principles of transparency which guarantees accountability and more humane treatment of innocent lives.
The ethics of care reinforces this idea. It requires that the basis of our moral decisions derive from our emotional attachments and responsibilities to others. The ethics of care claims that loyalty necessitates acting for the benefit of those we are connected with. When a person cares for the well-being of others, it is hardly surprising that they would speak out when harm is being done. From that standpoint, Manning’s whistleblowing is an act of care, a call to act to protect lives and prevent the misuse of power. Her actions demonstrate a commitment to the community and its values, mainly, preserving life than mere compliance with rules or directives.
The point is that loyalty to a nation does not mean blind obedience, it means carrying out the tasks that the nation is to represent, which are justice and the preservation of life. Manning’s exposure of the disturbing footage was in line with a form of rational loyalty that had regard for a citizen’s right to dignity. Her actions are an indication that, sometimes, true loyalty means opposing wrongdoing when protocols, procedures, and even legal obligations are being violated.
Critics of Manning may argue that she endangered national security and breached trust. Nevertheless, if loyalty means caring for those who are vulnerable and maintaining ethical standards, then Manning is justified in her actions. Rational loyalty allows for the possibility that if the organization fails its own code, it is part of a person’s duty to the public to inform the parties. In that context, Manning’s decision can be characterized as morally driven. It exemplifies that care and concern for others can transcend institutional loyalty in cases where it becomes controversial. In this framing, her actions are not an act of disloyalty, but a notion that the nation should live up to its values.
Relating back to Vandekerckhove and Commers notion of rational loyalty, and the ethics of care, whistleblowing does not need a betrayal, it can be seen as emerging from genuine care for human well-being. Manning’s choice was shaped by her commitment to these values. An individual loyal to the organization is left with no choice but to blow the whistle in cases where organization policies do not or cannot protect the public good. This critical loyalty is necessary, so the institution may remain accountable. Thus, Manning’s case becomes a moral example of whistleblowing out of genuine care for the people, rather than a blind loyalty to a system.

Analysis Using Oxley and Wittkower Concept, and the Ethics of Care.

Oxley and Wittkower present an understanding of loyalty in the workplace that centers on care and personal relationships. They argue that loyalty is not simply an obligation of contract or law; it refers to an emotional, and caring connection we have with others. In a workplace, loyalty is demonstrated as acts of care that go above and beyond the explicitly defined duties of the workplace. As this idea relates to the national perspective, it challenges our understanding of loyalty as simply an act of following orders. It invites us to see loyalty as a care for one’s fellow citizens and for the ethical principles that should guide government actions.
Looking at Manning’s case through this perspective, we see that her decision to release the footage is an extension of her personal commitment to care for individuals affected by military actions. Oxley and Wittkower explain that a loyal person acts in ways out of a desire to nurture and protect relationships. In a broader sense, Manning was engaged in whistleblowing as a way to protect the life and dignity of innocent people by exposing actions that caused harm. Manning’s decision to disclose the video amounts to challenging a system that did not adhere to the moral duty of protecting human life. Her decision to disclose the video can be interpreted as a way of restoring the balance of power and responsibility.
The ethics of care reinforces this interpretation. It states that our moral obligations arise because of our relationship with one another. When we care for someone, we experience obligations to act in ways that consider their well-being. Manning’s act of whistleblowing can be seen as a reflection of such care for people. The decision of Manning to disclose the military action was not done with malice but with a desire to alert the public of wrongdoings. Her action was a reflection of care for principles of compassion and justice embedded in the ethics of care.
In addition, Oxley and Wittkower highlight that in workplace relationships, loyalty is dynamic. Dynamic, in this case, does not mean blind compliance but, rather, the ability to make choices based on genuine concern for others. This notion extends to our sense of loyalty to our nation. True loyalty to a nation requires the ability to critique such a nation when it does not have moral standing in representing its people. If we take the military action as an example, Manning’s whistleblowing was a form of measure that rectifies harmful actions. It is a sort of call to the nation to re-evaluate practices and policies of military actions to ensure they exhibit some notion of care and justice.
Critics argue that Manning’s actions breached confidentiality and undermined national security. But if we adopt the position of loyalty as an act of care, such an argument collapses under its own lack of narrative. If loyalty is caring enough to inform others of harm, then her release of the video was a moral obligation. It demonstrates that her loyalty was to the values the institution represents rather than to such a failed institution. Thus, we see that Manning’s whistleblowing exemplified a courageous act of loyalty grounded in her ethical care for her fellow human beings and the public interest. Therefore, using Oxley and Wittkower framework along with the ethics of care, we can recognize that Manning’s actions were an expression of critical loyalty. She did not betray her country; she uncovered a disturbing matter worthy of public discourse. A better understanding is to see her actions as care–the obligation to make sure the nation acts according to the moral tenets it professes to follow. In doing this, she acted both morally and necessary in a democratic society.

Conclusion.

The case of Manning exposing a classified video creates a complex instance of loyalty and whistleblowing. By reviewing the case and analyzing it with the concepts from Vandekerckhove and Commers, and Oxley and Wittkower, it becomes clear that loyalty is not a matter of blind obedience but of caring responsibility. The ethics of care shows that true loyalty arises from an emotional commitment to the well-being of others. Although controversial, Manning’s engagement stems from her sincere concern for innocent lives and the ethical accountability of governmental actions. Critics maintain that Manning’s actions were disloyal to the United States and constitute a breach of trust. However, if loyalty is defined by commitment to care values that any government should adopt, then whistleblowing becomes no less than morally supported. Her decision to expose the video aligns with a view of loyalty that requires holding powerful institutions accountable when they fail the people they serve. Some people may worry about the risks associated with whistleblowing, such as compromising security. Yet, in a situation where silence allows harm, the call for accountability becomes a moral duty. While no analysis is without its drawback, the frame of ethics of care helps us see that critical loyalty can demand speaking out against wrongdoing. In that regard, Manning’s whistleblowing represents a moral act–one that calls out institutions to live up to the high ideals they promise to protect.