The term \u201cwhistleblower\u201d evokes a range of reactions. Some view whistleblowers as
heroes, essential for societal progress, while others see them as traitors who have
betrayed their country or violated their oath. I believe both perspectives hold validity in
many cases. In 2010, Chelsea Manning released a substantial amount of confidential
military documents, including a video recorded from an Apache helicopter during an
incident in Baghdad. The Apache opened fire on a group of men, some of whom were
armed with AK-47s. Amongst these men were two journalists carrying cameras, which
were mistaken for weapons. The attack was initiated because the Apache crew
erroneously identified a camera as an RPG, which they feared could bring down their
helicopter. The crew’s demeanor became frantic upon perceiving this threat, leading the
chain of command to order the helicopter to open fire. In this case analysis, I will argue
that consequentialism demonstrates Manning acted out of reasonable loyalty and care
for the United States, and that her actions were morally justified. Consequentialism
evaluates actions based on their outcomes. From a consequentialist perspective, an
action is considered right if it leads to good consequences, and wrong if it results in bad
consequences. Manning’s actions, when viewed through the lens of consequentialism,
can be seen as an attempt to bring about a positive change by exposing wrongdoing.
In the article “Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty,” Wim Vandekerckhove argues that
whistleblowing as an institution is an organizational necessity for two primary reasons:
first, organizations need to be alerted promptly when decisions are made that could
harm them, and second, for the sake of accountability. He asserts that the public has a
right to know if an incident may affect them in some way, and I agree with this
standpoint.
The second major topic in Vandekerckhove\u2019s article is \u2018rational loyalty.\u2019 Vandekerckhove
states, \u201cthe object of loyalty is not the physicality of an organization, but its corpus of
explicit mission statement, goals, value statement, and code of conduct.\u201d He believes
that when a company publicly shares its mission, standards, and goals, it makes a
statement about what the company stands for. I believe that consequentialism and
rational loyalty are intertwined, especially in this case. Chelsea Manning blew the
whistle on the U.S. military because she believed that the actions taken were wrong and
that making these incidents public was ethically right.
In releasing the Baghdad video tapes from the Apache helicopters, Manning was
convinced she was in the right because the decisions made that day were immoral. She
believed the soldiers’ actions were wrong and wanted the public to be aware of what
was happening. Manning sought accountability from the U.S. military for their actions.
From her consequentialist perspective, the unjustifiable killing of reporters made the
soldiers’ actions that day wrong. Her rational loyalty was to the betterment of the country
rather than to the Army as an organization. Many would argue she was wrong and
certainly earned no favor from those in the Army at the time, but she acted in what she
believed to be the best interest of the U.S.
An Institutional whistleblowing often results from an employee\u2019s reasonable loyalty, as
seen in the case of Edward Snowden. Typically, a whistleblower strongly believes that
their organization has acted immorally, breaking a code of honor or ethical standards.
This person may feel a greater allegiance to their country or humanity than to their
organization. Such situations are usually complex and involve many levels and people,
which can intimidate potential whistleblowers. However, it is crucial to expose unethical
actions.
The most distressing aspect of this case, in my opinion, was the U.S. refusal to take the
two injured children to a more advanced U.S. hospital. The errors made during the
attack on the Baghdadis were already egregious, but denying medical care to those
children was, in my view, outright immoral\u2014a sentiment Manning clearly shared. The
Rules of Engagement (ROE) appeared to have been violated during the second attack
when the van arrived to help the injured. Seeing the ROE ignored, Manning felt
compelled to act.
The lack of accountability in the end was a tragic and shameful outcome for the United
States. As a nation, we expect our military to do everything necessary to protect
democracy and succeed in their missions, but we must also demand that they operate
in a moral and ethical manner. This case underscores the need for accountability and
ethical conduct in military operations, reminding us that the pursuit of democracy and
security should never come at the expense of fundamental human rights and ethical
standards.
The second article studied, “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace,” by Julinna Oxley and
D.E. Wittkower, focuses on the concepts of loyalty, care, the ethics of care, and
whistleblowing. Wittkower and Oxley highlight the complexity of defining loyalty in a
business context, as it can manifest in various ways. People’s definitions of loyalty to
their business may differ based on personal beliefs, their attachment to the
organization, and how detrimental they perceive the company’s actions to be. In the
case of Chelsea Manning, she may have felt she was acting loyally to her country rather
than to her immediate organization, the U.S. Army. This is a nuanced issue, considering
that the Army’s mission is to protect the country, leading to a sense of unease for some
regarding Manning’s loyalty. However, I argue that Manning, while breaking the law,
was indeed loyal to her country. She perceived the U.S. military as disregarding the
rules of engagement and felt compelled to act rather than remain silent.
Manning believed that by exposing the military’s actions to the public, she was
upholding her loyalty to the U.S. and holding the military accountable for their actions.
Her concern for the ethical conduct of U.S. forces in Baghdad and the innocent lives lost
demonstrated her care for both her country and humanity. Manning\u2019s actions illustrate a
commitment to the ethics of care, prioritizing the well-being of individuals over
organizational allegiance when the two are in conflict. She aimed to improve
accountability and transparency, highlighting the moral responsibility to protect human
life and uphold ethical standards.
The ethics of care can be broadly defined as maintaining the well-being of ourselves
and those around us. Care ethicists might argue that Chelsea Manning was out of line
and did not show loyalty to her organization, the U.S. Army. They could contend that
Manning failed to find a way to remain loyal to the Army while simultaneously
contributing to the relationship’s betterment and growth.
However, it can also be argued that Manning acted to improve the relationship with the
Iraqi people by exposing the wrongful actions of the soldiers on that fateful day. While
both sides of this argument have merit, I align more with the latter perspective. Manning
demonstrated the ethics of care, although not to her employer, but to her fellow human
beings, which is, in my opinion, far more crucial.
Bringing such concerns to anyone in power is undoubtedly challenging and fraught with
the risk of repercussions. Care ethicists might also highlight that Manning was operating
within the caregiver\/care-receiver model by shedding light on the Army’s mistakes. The
Iraqi civilians depended on the U.S. to show care and assist them during a difficult
regime and transition period.
Manning’s actions underscore the importance of prioritizing human well-being over
organizational loyalty when the two are in conflict. Her whistleblowing was an act of care
for the innocent lives affected by the military’s actions, reflecting a profound ethical
commitment to humanity. This perspective shifts the focus from organizational
allegiance to a broader, more inclusive consideration of global human relationships and
ethical responsibility.
Consequentialism, loyalty, and care ethics are intertwined in whistleblowing analysis. In
most whistleblowing cases, the whistleblower feels that: (1) certain actions are wrong
and should have consequences, and (2) sharing this information with the public
demonstrates loyalty to their country or belief system. The ethics of care dictate that we
should act to improve human relationships, regardless of location. People depend on
each other, which should drive our decisions.
In conclusion, I believe Chelsea Manning acted in a morally responsible manner. She
demonstrated a deep care for her fellow human beings and sought to rectify the
injustices she observed. Manning’s rational loyalty was not just to her immediate
organization, but to the betterment of human relationships on a global scale, as it should
be. Her consequentialist perspective led her to blow the whistle on the military for what
she perceived as unethical and immoral actions that resulted in the deaths of innocent
Iraqi journalists. Manning believed that her whistleblowing would lead to more ethical
future actions by the U.S. military and a reduction in innocent casualties. By her actions,
Manning exemplified adherence to the ethics of care, showing a genuine desire for the
betterment of humanity. Caring, in this context, means maintaining the world and the
well-being of the people around us, regardless of geographical or organizational
boundaries. We must strive to foster positive social relations and hold ourselves
accountable to ensure a more just and peaceful future. Manning’s actions remind us of
the importance of ethical responsibility and the profound impact that standing up for
what is right can have on the world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The term \u201cwhistleblower\u201d evokes a range of reactions. Some view whistleblowers asheroes, essential for societal progress, while others see them as traitors who havebetrayed their country or violated their oath. I believe both perspectives hold validity inmany cases. In 2010, Chelsea Manning released a substantial amount of confidentialmilitary documents, including a video recorded from an… <\/p>\n