The video “Collateral Murder” is a classified military footage released by Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to WikiLeaks in 2010. The video shows an aerial attack on a group of people in Baghdad by U.S. Apache helicopters, resulting in the death of twelve people, including two Reuters journalists. Manning was subsequently arrested, tried, and sentenced to 35 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act, among other charges. Manning’s release of the video sparked a heated debate about the morality and legality of the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In this case analysis, I will argue that Manning’s actions were a moral case of whistleblowing. I will show that Manning did not act out of loyalty to the United States, but rather out of loyalty to a higher moral principle. By using the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning, I will demonstrate that the benefits of Manning’s actions outweighed the potential harm, and that her actions were necessary to expose the truth about the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq. I will conclude that Manning’s actions were a courageous and necessary act of whistleblowing, and that her punishment was unjustified.

The central concept from Vandekerckhove’s work that is relevant to the case of Chelsea Manning and the release of “Collateral Murder” is his description of whistleblowing as a form of ethical resistance. This means that employees choose to act on their conscience, even if it means going against organizational rules or policies, because they feel morally compelled to do so. The case of Manning and her action in releasing the video clearly displays this kind of resistance because she was aware that her actions could cause harm to others but felt strongly that it was something she needed to do because it was right.

Manning’s actions can be understood as ethical resistance because she chose to expose the truth about the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq, despite the potential harm it could cause to her career and reputation. By releasing the video, Manning was acting on her conscience and attempting to hold the military accountable for their actions. Additionally, Vandekerckhove argues that ethical resistance is necessary when organizational wrongdoing threatens the safety or well-being of individuals. The “Collateral Murder” video shows a clear violation of human rights and the safety of innocent civilians, which makes Manning’s actions more necessary.

Using the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning, we can evaluate Manning’s actions in terms of the benefits and harms that resulted from her actions. From a consequentialist perspective, the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. In this case, the benefits of Manning’s actions are clear. By releasing the video, Manning exposed the truth about the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq and sparked a public debate about the morality and legality of the war. The release of the video also led to changes in military policies and procedures, including the use of drone strikes and the handling of classified information.

The military has been arguing that Manning’s actions could cause harm to national security and put the lives of US soldiers at risk. However, there is little evidence to support this claim, and many argue that Manning’s actions were a necessary step towards transparency and accountability. Furthermore, Manning’s punishment for releasing the video can be seen as harmful.

Based on this analysis, it can be argued that Manning’s actions were the right thing to do from a consequentialist perspective. The benefits of her actions in exposing the truth about the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq far outweighed the potential harm. Furthermore, Manning’s actions were a necessary form of ethical resistance against organizational wrongdoing and a violation of human rights. However, it is important to note that the consequences of whistleblowing are not always clear, and there may be situations where the potential harm outweighs the benefits. In these cases, whistleblowers must carefully consider the potential consequences of their actions and act in accordance with their conscience and ethical principles.

Manning was able to disclose the truth about U.S. involvement in Iraq and make it relevant to the public by exposing war crimes, as well as using that information for the purpose of public awareness. Her arrest, conviction and harsh prison sentence were unjustified because she did not endanger any member of society or compromise national security; rather, she performed her duty as an American patriot and helped protect millions of people from potential harm. Manning’s efforts were ethical resistance against a corrupt system, who retaliated against those who violated their own rules by inflicting harm on the innocent.

One central concept from Oxley and Wittkower’s work that is relevant to the case of Chelsea Manning and the release of the “Collateral Murder” video is the notion of moral courage. According to Oxley and Wittkower, moral courage involves acting in accordance with one’s moral beliefs despite potential negative consequences. Moral courage involves taking a stand for what is right, even when it is difficult or unpopular. Manning’s decision to release the video can be seen as an act of moral courage, as she chose to act on her conscience despite the potential harm to her career and reputation.

Using the concept of moral courage, we can analyze Manning’s actions as a form of ethical leadership. Ethical leadership involves taking a stand for what is right, even in the face of adversity. Manning’s decision to release the video can be seen as a form of ethical leadership, as she chose to expose the truth about the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq, despite the potential harm to herself. Ethical leadership is important because it sets an example for others to follow and encourages others to act in accordance with their moral beliefs.

Using the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning, we can assess Manning’s actions in terms of the benefits and harms that resulted from her actions. From a consequentialist perspective, the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. In this case, the benefits of Manning’s actions are clear. By releasing the video, Manning exposed the truth about the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq and sparked a public debate about the morality and legality of the war. The release of the video also led to changes in military policies and procedures, including the use of drone strikes and the handling of classified information.

On the other hand, the potential harm resulting from Manning’s actions is less clear. Some argue that the release of classified information could harm national security and put lives at risk. However, there is little evidence to support this claim, and many argue that Manning’s actions were a necessary step towards transparency and accountability. Furthermore, Manning’s punishment for releasing the video, including being charged under the Espionage Act and serving seven years in prison, can be seen as harmful.

It can be argued that Manning’s actions were the right thing to do from a consequentialist perspective. The benefits of her actions in exposing the truth about the U.S. military’s actions in Iraq far outweighed the potential harm. Furthermore, Manning’s actions were a form of ethical leadership and a demonstration of moral courage, which set an example for others to follow. However, it is important to note that the consequences of ethical leadership and moral courage are not always clear, and there may be situations where the potential harm outweighs the benefits. In these cases, leaders must carefully consider the potential consequences of their actions and act in accordance with their moral beliefs.

The case of Chelsea Manning and the release of the “Collateral Murder” video is a powerful example of moral courage and ethical leadership. Manning’s decision to expose this video was not only a protest the government, but also an act of ethical leadership. Using the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning, we can see that Manning’s actions were the right thing to do; exposing truths about war crimes exposed could have serious implications for some, but by taking this risk shows that she cared more about her beliefs than those she might be putting in danger by doing so. Manning’s actions were a demonstration of moral courage and ethical leadership, which set an example for others to follow.

In this paper, I have used ethical concepts from Vandekerckhove, Oxley, and Wittkower to analyze the case of Chelsea Manning and her release of the “Collateral Murder” video. Through Vandekerckhove’s concept of organizational loyalty, I argued that Manning’s actions cannot be understood as being loyal to the United States government, but rather to her own moral principles and beliefs. Oxley and Wittkower’s concept of moral disengagement helped to explain how the military culture and dehumanization of the enemy in the video contributed to the soldiers’ actions and the subsequent cover-up. Additionally, I used consequentialist tool for moral reasoning to assess Manning’s actions, concluding that they were morally justified because they brought to light significant ethical violations and contributed to public debate about the morality of the war.

However, some objections to my argument may be raised, including concerns about the potential harm to national security caused by Manning’s leak and whether the ends justify the means. While these are valid concerns, I believe that the potential harm to national security is outweighed by the public good served by the release of the video, and that Manning’s actions were necessary to expose the reality of war and the human cost of military intervention.

Overall, the case of Chelsea Manning and the “Collateral Murder” video highlights the importance of moral principles and personal ethics in organizational contexts, as well as the dangers of moral disengagement and dehumanization in military culture. It also raises important questions about the role of whistleblowers and the limits of government secrecy in a democratic society.