Topic:
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?
Ethical Tool: Virtue Ethics
In 2020, Chelsea Manning was arrested for leaking classified Army intelligence. One of the items showed an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency. WikiLeaks gave the video the title Collateral Murder and released it with the statement:
“WikiLeaks has released a classified U.S. military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad—including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.”
Manning’s defense was based on the philosophy of virtue ethics. She believed that her employer, the US Army, had committed war crimes by killing innocent people. Her loyalty to her country was worth more to her than her loyalty to her employer. From a virtue-based perspective, loyalty between employer and employee can lead to some questionable moral scenarios. Especially when your employer demands unflinching loyalty, as is the case with the US Army. In this Case Analysis I will argue that virtue ethics shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a justified, moral case of whistleblowing.
Vandekerckhove and Commers use Jubb’s definition of whistleblowing for their analysis. They refer to whistleblowing as “a deliberate non obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto public record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or information of an organization, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the control of that organization, to an external entity having potential to rectify that wrongdoing.” They argue that whistleblowing as an institution does not contradict an employee’s loyalty to their organization. Vandekerckhove reconceptualizes the idea of loyalty in a way that fits our current organizational needs with four main criteria:
- Loyalty is an attitude aimed at an object
- Loyalty has an explicit external referent
- Loyalty is a learned attitude
- Loyalty is bilateral
These four constraints form the author’s basis of a theory on rational loyalty, in which an employee should not be loyal to the physical aspects of the company- coworkers, manager, etc.- but to their company’s mission as a whole. When a company makes their mission public, they make a statement about what the company stands for. When that mission statement holds up to public scrutiny, it is accepted by the community, then that mission becomes an object worthy of rational loyalty. By following this philosophy, Vandekerckhove’s main point is that loyalty to a company would never contradict a duty to blow the whistle “in order to prevent harm to and further the wellbeing of society.”
Military whistleblowers are often considered disloyal. In that environment, disloyalty can result in severe retaliation from colleagues and the community at large. Organizations like the military try to instill a sense of loyalty based on camaraderie and a sense of shared purpose. I think, in our country at least, there is this weird fascination with the military in the sense that many people believe the military can do no wrong. I believe that they are only human and can make mistakes just like any other organization. The US Army’s public mission statement is:
“To deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force.”
Using Vandekerckhove’s new definition of loyalty and considering Manning’s leaks in relation to the Army’s mission statement, it is my opinion that her leaks did not contradict her loyalty to the US Army or to the United States as a country. She believed that the leaked video showed evidence of excessive use of force, violations of the rules of engagement, as well as potential war crimes. She became a whistleblower in order to prevent additional harm. I believe, by Vandekerckhove’s criteria, we can label Manning a justified whistleblower. After her sentencing, Manning said “the decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in.”
The theory of virtue ethics is based on the idea that there is a common set of virtues that all human beings would benefit from, such as prudence, justice, bravery and temperance. It promotes life as a quest to understand and live a life of moral character. I believe that Manning’s sense of justice is relevant in our example. A sense of virtuous justice requires us to treat all human beings equally and impartially, regardless of their social status or rank. Many of her other statements, regarding the leaks, invoke a virtue-based ethical philosophy. She mentions that they may have targeted innocent civilians, but by that point their lives had been devalued so much that it did not feel like they mattered. Whistleblowers like Manning are driven by a need to tell the truth. They feel like they are obligated to speak out in order to right a wrong. In her case blowing the whistle was necessary to improve her integrity. She stated that her objective, when leaking the information, “is to do something.” She further explained that “When you’re in a situation like that, it’s more about understanding the consequences of not doing something, and understanding, ‘Will I regret not doing something?’ That weighed on me far more than anything else.” She believed that she had a moral obligation to get that information to the public regardless of the outcome. Based on one of the primary tenants of virtue ethics and Vandekerckhove’s views on rational loyalty, I believe Chelsea Manning did the right thing in this scenario. She believed that the military was guilty of murdering innocent people and that the world needed to know about it.
Oxley and Wittkower define loyalty as a commitment that goes beyond obligation. They emphasize that while the employee may have a sense of obligatory loyalty to their employer, not all expressions of loyalty are appropriate and not all employers are worthy objects of loyalty. Oxley and Wittkower state that loyalty is an ambiguous motivation for whistleblowing because “loyalty cannot be simply called moral, nor disloyalty immoral.” The object of that loyalty is relevant. I think these are their most critical points in relation to our whistleblowing analysis. OW speak mostly from a care ethics perspective but I think their main points are relevant to a virtue ethics-based analysis as well. OW argue that, from a care ethics perspective, obligations of loyalty between an employer and an employee resemble the obligations of loyalty between family members, in the sense that moral obligations flow from the nature of the relationships. From a virtue ethics-based perspective, how should we determine whether our employers are worthy objects of our loyalty? I think it will depend on each individual and whether, or not, their employer’s core moral actions and beliefs align with theirs. If an employee has a strong set of virtues then these behaviors will carry over into the workplace. If these core virtues are not shared by their employer then they are not a suitable object of loyalty.
Oxley and Wittkower state that: “Loyalty can motivate an employee to blow the whistle when the corporation is engaging in uncaring activities regarding its employees, the environment, or its consumers.” I believe this can be extended to include communities as well. They continue with: “Loyalty can also be a motivation to attack and silence whistleblowers, when that dissent has a strong and apparent moral basis.” Most would agree that the US Army prefers the latter approach. When the leaks were made public, Manning was ostracized from the military community and they tried to put her in prison for treason. The Army does not have a favorable opinion of whistleblowers. In my research, I have not been able to find one example of a whistleblowing incident involving the Army where the Army admitted wrongdoing and moved on. They demand unquestionable loyalty and severely punish dissenters. OW talk about whether or not an employer is a worthy object of loyalty. Some employers demand uncritical loyalty, where the interests of the employer are prioritized over the interests of the employee or anybody else. Blind, unquestioning loyalty. I believe the US Army is one of those employers. Their core virtues, or lack thereof, did not align with Manning’s, compelling her to blow the whistle.
By Oxley and Wittkower’s criteria, I believe the US Army/Chelsea Manning relationship fits their “battered wife” analogy and I do not think they would consider uncritical loyalty to the US Army as moral. From a virtue ethics standpoint, the uncritical loyalty required by the US Army is not conducive to an ethical work environment. “Military discipline requires that service members’ ethical frameworks remain preconventional (making behavior choices based on fear of punishment and abiding by rules imposed from the outside) and conventional (conforming to the expectation of the group and motivated by loyalty) (FeministWire, 2013) Critical loyalty, in which an employee considers the interests of the employer within their ethical restraints is much more conducive to an ethical work environment. It allows for more freedom and employee can have their voice heard without fear of repercussions. Employees of the US Army are not allowed critical loyalty. They are expected to put their concerns aside in favor of the interests of the Army.
Loyalty in the military can be a controversial subject. Soldiers are places in a rigid hierarchical system that does not place much importance on their individual ethical beliefs. The Army’s core virtues are already in place and they expect soldiers to adopt those same virtues. That is not always the case. Virtues need to be practiced and cultivated, in and out of the workplace. Problems occur when an employer’s virtues do not align with that of their employees. People with strong senses of courage and justice see whistleblowing as a moral duty. I believe that it is crucial that we have systems in place to legally protect justified whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning. From a virtue-based ethical perspective, there are definitely cases of justified whistleblowing when immoral actions are taken by an employer. I believe the Collateral Murder video illustrates an example of immoral behavior taken on behalf of an employer. The whistleblowing was justified in my opinion. Alternatively, you could argue that a soldier’s duty is to their country and nothing else. In which case no leaks involving the Army would ever be “justified.” I do not believe there are ethical grounds for that opinion, though. Just because leaking is illegal does not make it immoral.