CA 5 – Confucian Tool

            The video on the surveillance video from the United States military in Iraq was unmoral. In the video the military crew was exposed where they were abusing power and using their power for the wrong reasons. In the video they are seen targeting people in Iraq and begging for the authority to engage fire on people, some did not even have a weapon or were already wounded. They showed no mercy in the video and the whistleblower related to this case exposed the video and brought this situation to light. Innocent children were also harmed in one of the engagements they made when a van pulled up to a wounded man, they injured to help him and they asked for permission to seize fire on the van which ended up killing the man, some of the children, and left some children wounded leaving them and their families traumatized. In this case analysis I will argue that Confucian Tool shows us that Manning did not act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.

            One of the central concepts from Vanderkerckhove goes into detail with the problems with loyalty and whistle blowing. This central concept goes into detail with explaining the relationship with loyalty and obligations of companies and organizations and whistle blowing and how whistle blowing violates those loyalty rules or obligations of those companies. In the concept, whistle blowing is seen as “an obligation one has to the public to prevent harm” even in situations where it would be morally right to whistle blow it is still a violation of loyalty and obligations. He also claims in that employee loyalty to companies is a mistake because companies are not proper objects of loyalty. He provides reasoning with this claim with explaining that “in the context of companies, there is not conflict between the duty to loyalty and the duty to blow the whistle simply because there is no duty of loyalty”.  

Using this concept to analyze the case, Manning did what was morally right in my opinion. However, just like the concept from Vanderkerckhove, it was a violation of loyalty and obligations of the United States. This concept also relates to the case because as explained in the concept from Vanderkerckhove, Manning had the obligation to be loyal to the United States and the government with not leaking or misuse of valuable information like the surveillance they did put out. At the Same time Manning has the obligation and responsibility to make sure there is no harm to the community or anyone.

Another central concept from Vanderkerckhove goes into detail with implications and rational loyalty decision making. A question that could be used in making rational decisions can be “Does This meet the organizations need for loyalty?” as shown by Vanderkerckhove in this concept. Vanderkerckhove explains loyalty as the attitude toward a certain object and it is an attitude of acting in the interest of the object. He states that the object of rational loyalty is the explicit set of mission statement, goals, value statement and code of conduct of an organization. Rational loyalty itself is not the company, but it is the company’s goals and morals that make that company or organization what it was built to be.

Using the concept of implications and rational loyalty decision making, Manning had to do some rational thinking to think about outcomes and how it would affect society and most important it if would harm anyone. There was something Manning saw about the United States government that she thought was unmoral and not worth loyalty that Manning took an action that went against the obligations of the United States government and potentially put herself at risk.

            Using the Confucian Tool to assess the actions taken in the case by Manning, I think what she did was morally right. I think this was right because the United States should not be hiding footage like this that is not right, fair, or necessary. The footage of the military troops showing no mercy on some innocent people in Iraq is not right. Yes, they were on a mission and in an environment of combat, so it be viewed different ways where they have only seconds to react or respond to an event, so they are taking measures on what they do and how they engage. The footage may only make it look bad, but I still think what Manning did was right because people need to see what action goes on, considering that Confucianism is about people in society learning and benefiting from life lessons and seeing things that could teach them better perspectives and give them a right mindset.

            One of the central concepts from Julinnna Oxley and D.E Wittkower’s “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace” goes into detail with traditional approaches to loyalty in business. They talk about how loyalty should be defined and how its one of the most important questions in that field. They also describe how different people who believe different things can see and understand loyalty from different perspectives. One of the descriptive approaches they explain is the normative approaches that some define loyalty as a desirable virtue, based upon commitment to social values that are shared by the corporation. There are still other views of the normative approach that base an obligation of loyalty upon an express or implied pledge which may or may not be made.

            There is another view of loyalty of business that could be called a psychological approach or psychological terms that straddle descriptive and normative approaches. Some that have that psychological view of loyalty in business and workplace describe loyalty as a feeling that is desirable but not obligatory and others that relate to them in the psychological view but have some differences define loyalty as an implicit understanding or a “psychological contract”. Authors usually take more of a psychological approach and claim that consideration of desert are still relevant, since “emotion and judgement are not, of course, entirely separate matters”. They also claim that loyalty may be more pr less “appropriate” or justifiable depending on the employer’s reciprocation and the worthiness of the business or company and how valuable it is to the people that are obligated to be loyal and work for that business or company. This can all be seen and understood from Julinna Oxley’s and D.E Wittkower’s “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace”. They state in this concept of loyalty that all the different conceptions of loyalty are “impoverished because they fail to acknowledge that loyalty is usually an expression of care in a personal relationship, rather than a requirement of implicit contract or obligation”.

Using this concept of traditional approaches to loyalty in business, it is hard to tell which approach to loyalty and understanding of loyalty Manning could have had causing her to whistle blow. From watching the video and observing the case, I would say Manning had more of a psychological approach and understand of loyalty, but it is still hard to tell, I am going off my observations so there could be different views. I say she had a psychological approach to loyalty because as in the concept form “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace” where loyalty is a desirable feeling and not an obligation. Which Manning did not feel right or felt the desire for loyalty for the United States which cause Manning to take that action?

            Using the Confucian tool to assess the actions take in the whistleblower case, I still feel what Manning did was right, even if it was not out of loyalty for the United States. The United States had footage hiding form the public about how it seemed troops in Iraq were misusing power in begging to engage on some innocent people (even children) that caused no harm. Manning felt obligated to be loyal and if she had the psychological approach to loyalty where it should not be an obligation that could be a reason behind her decision for whistleblowing.

            To conclude and summarize this case analysis on whistleblowing, I think what Manning did was morally right if even if it was not out of loyalty for the United States. Using the 2 concepts from Vanderkerckhove and the concepts from Julinnna Oxley and D.E Wittkower’s “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace” I analyze the case using those concepts and use the Confucian Tool to analyze the actions taken in the case to come to a conclusion on if I think what she did was right.

            Of course, there can be opposing and opposite views when it comes to this case. Depending on what approach to loyalty and someone’s perception of loyalty someone can having different thoughts and view about what Manning did and it was morally right and whether it was out of loyalty for the United States or was not. If someone had the normative view of loyalty in the workplace, they may not agree with what manning did. While if they have more of a psychological approach to loyalty they may see where Manning came from when making that rational decision if that is the approach Manning had.