Michonda Ramsey 

PHIL 355E

Case Analysis 5.4

Apr 27, 2025

There will always be a question of if something is morally right, how can it be unlawful. In Collateral Murder,  it focuses on how Whistleblower Chelsea Manning released video recordings of United States military war crimes when a military helicopter ordered an airstrike after misidentifying cameras as loaded weapons that led to the death of innocent Iraqians. The argument of this video evaluates whether Chelsea Manning acted in best interest of the US public while betraying the United States military when she released the video alongside other classified documents. In this case analysis, I will argue that the ethical framework Utilitarianism best relates to the actions of Chelsea Manning by demonstrating that her ethical decision, while done with the best intentions of the American citizens and exposing the lack of military accountability, may have created consequences that threatened national security. I will also evaluate Vandekerckhove’s concept of Rational loyalty and how Chelsea Manning prioritizes moral code rather than fidelity to the government and the United States. 

Although the Utilitarian tool implies that one’s actions are justifiable when the benefits outweigh the consequences, Vandekerckhove’s concept of rational loyalty examines whether loyalty to an organization should be based on ethical principles or blind allegiance. Essentially, the concept of Rational loyalty shows how one’s ethical response is based on their commitment to public transparency rather than expected organizational alliance. Therefore, it raises the question, if a person acknowledges that a business has committed misconduct that can be deemed morally and ethically wrong, should it be seen as an act of betrayal through whilseblowing? 

From the perspective of rational loyalty, Manning’s decision to sound the alarm on the military crimes was a direct alignment with the need to abandon obligated company loyalty for the better good of the community. The critical thinking process for Manning would demonstrate that she evaluated the evidence of a harmful act and made the calculated decision to leak the recording along with the classified documents to a public platform to ensure that accountability was demanded rather than suggested. An argument against Manning’s action and rational loyalty would suggest that if she utilized the alternative approach of whistleblowing internally, she would have still upheld her obligation to her organization through blind allegiance. According to Vanderckhove, whistleblowing as an institution would be calculated as an organization need. Therefore, the existence of this process would have allowed for transparency on a larger scale and could have been addressed by those whose roles permit for decision making authority. Rational loyalty is best fitting when you evaluate the actions of Chelsea Manning simply because she acted within reasoning that allowed her to maintain dedication to moral values. Utilitarianism measures the actions against the repercussions to evaluate if the maximum outcome is in favor of positive morality. Therefore, this ethical theory suggests that results will have a longstanding positive impact in comparison to temporary suffering. From the perspective of utilitarianism,if the leak of those recordings prevented future unjustifiable war crimes, then it can be said that the good outweighed the bad.  On the opposing side of an Utilitarian perspective, it can be argued that Manning’s actions caused immediate threat to national security, breach of government intelligence and risk of retaliation towards those involved. Whistleblowing in itself has always carried a negative connotation of betrayal. This pushes back against the ethical theory of Utilitarianism simply because, although the actions forced a wider range of transparency within the military, it also implies that sometimes that there is undressed abuse of power.  

In the article, Care and Loyalty in the Workplace, Oxley and Wittkower explore how loyalty is seen as a form of care in an organizational context. Most organizations have endorsed policies that embrace integrity and morality. This means that if there are reportable actions, then you have the rightful duty to speak up as a way to show care for that organization. To explain a bit further, there is encouragement among these organizations to uphold the values. This best correlates with Oxley and Witthower concept of critical loyalty. Critical loyalty aligns with the support of honest evaluation of unethical practices while still supporting the mission of the corporation. Therefore, this concept rebuts blind loyalty, which is ultimately the action of just agreeing with everything because it is contractual or seeking to protect the reputation of the company. If this concept of Critical loyalty is used to analyze Chelsea Manning’s case, the evidence would show that her moral actions were committed out of care for others rather than obedience. Critical loyalty also implies that if Chelsea Manning had made the decision to stay silent regarding the recordings, then she would have violated her moral obligation, which isn’t true loyalty. From my understanding of critical loyalty, Manning’s case demonstrated how she completely disregarded her personal well-being and freedom to expose the harmful actions carried out by the United State Military. I do not doubt that she calculated the level of controversy that would be created from whistleblowing , but still ignored the need for personal gain to expose the actions of the servicemen for the benefit of the public, and victims. It raises the question of, is it imperative for wrongdoing on an institutional level to be reported and handled internally to represent loyalty or is it a given right to expose harmful actions publicly to ensure that moral commitment to society. 

In conclusion, the review of both Oxley and Witthowker concept of critical loyalty and Vanderckhove’s theory of rational loyalty has demonstrated that Chelsea Manning’s action challenges conventional ideas of loyalty. It has also shown that her actions were morally justified being that the outcome created a greater good in comparison to the small level of harm it caused. However, alternative arguments revealed that Manning had a moral obligation to uphold her oath and shield the military from public scrutiny, despite the harmful nature of their actions. This argument gave a false sense of disloyalty, implying that there must be a level of blind allegiance to the organization. Overall, in the analysis of this case, it showed that loyalty was represented by Chelsea Manning by aligning herself with her moral duties to protect the integrity and transparency of the United Military by exposing harmful crimes against humanity. It allowed for better policies and procedures to be taken to protect the public but also it may have created a security net around who will have access to this data and who gives the authority to share it.