Introduction

            On July 12, 2007, a U.S. Apache helicopter engaged and killed multiple individuals in a Baghdad suburb, including two Reuters journalists. The engagement was later revealed in a video titled Collateral Murder, released in 2010 by WikiLeaks. The footage, put in by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, made an international outrage and debate over the ethics of military engagement and the treatment of civilians in conflict zones. Manning accessed and leaked the footage, along with other classified materials, believing the American public had the right to know what was being done in its name. She was later convicted under the Espionage Act and sentenced to 35 years in prison, though her sentence was commuted after seven years. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that, from a contractarian perspective, Manning acted out of loyalty to the United States and that her actions constitute a moral case of whistleblowing.

Contractarian Ethics and the Social Contract

 Lookingh fropm a contractarian point of view, moral obligations arise from the social contracts we implicitly or explicitly agree to as members of a society. These contracts are built on mutual respect, fairness, and shared commitment to the rules that make civil cooperation possible. For public servants and military personnel, this also includes holding up constitutional values and ensuring that government institutions operate in the interest of the people they serve.

            Chelsea Manning’s actions, while a breach of military protocol, can be understood as an appeal to a higher contract the social agreement between the government and the governed. The legit state of state authority depends on its alignment with justice, transparency, and the public good. When state agents or institutions violate that agreement, individuals within those institutions have a moral responsibility to restore balance by drawing attention to the breach.

Manning had released the video that was not for personal gain but because she believed the military had violated its moral obligation to act justly, particularly regarding the treatment of civilians. Her decision to disclose the footage reflects a commitment to the ethical foundations of the United States’ social contract. Rather than betraying the country, she upheld the principle that authority must be held accountable to the people it serves.

Vandekerckhove and Rational Loyalty

 Vandekerckhove and Commers propose the concept of “rational loyalty,” which supports the contractarian perspective. Rational loyalty is not blind obedience to hierarchy but a reasoned commitment to an organization’s explicitly stated mission, values, and goals. Loyalty, under this framework, aligns with acting in the interest of organizational integrity and ethical purpose however even if that insuinuates speaking out against wrong doing.

            In Manning’s case the military’s course of action in the video directly contradicted its stated values and human law. The killing of unarmed civilians and journalists, the dehumanizing commentary, and the attempt to conceal these actions from the public violate both ethical standards and the trust placed in the institution. Manning’s rational loyalty to the Constitution, to democratic ideals, and the military’s codes of conduct justified her decision to blow the whistle.

            Furthermore, Vandekerckhove and Commers argue that organizations have a reciprocal obligation: if they demand rational loyalty, they must institutionalize whistleblowing as a legitimate safeguard. The lack of such figures in Mannings since left her with no viable internal recourse, making external disclosure a necessary ethical action.

Oxley and Wittkower’s Relational Loyalty

            Oxley and Wittkower’s model of care and relational loyalty also supports a contractarian reading of Manning’s actions. Loyalty is not unconditional but dependent on the ongoing fulfillment of mutual responsibilities. When institutions fail to meet their ethical obligations, they forfeit the right to demand loyalty from their members.

            The military failed to protect innocent lives, misled the public, and created an environment that made normal harm. Manning’s whistleblowing was a moral response to this breach of trust. According to Oxley and Wittkower, such action demonstrates critical care for both the victims of institutional failure and the broader moral fabric of the community. Manning’s act was not a rejection of loyalty, but a reassertion of ethical commitment in the face of institutional breakdown.

Conclusion

            From a contractarian perspective, Chelsea Manning’s whistleblowing was a moral act made clear that a higher duty to the social contract. Her decision was guided by a commitment to justice, transparency, and the public good values that legitimate state power and justify loyalty to the state. Rational loyalty, as defined by Vandekerckhove, and relational loyalty, as outlined by Oxley and Wittkower, both affirm that whistleblowing can be an act of fidelity to institutional principles when those principles have been violated from within.

            Some may argue that her disclosures endangered lives or undermined military operations. These risks are not insignificant. However, contractarian ethics reminds us that legitimacy arises from consent and fairness. The secret and impunity corrode that legitimacy far more deeply than transparency ever could. If the state is to retain the trust of its citizens, it must accept critique and correction, especially from those within its own ranks.

            In the end, Manning’s actions were not a breach of loyalty but an act of ethical resistance, a refusal to be complicit in systemic harm and a defense of the very principles the United States claims to uphold.