The United States has been at war with Iraq since 2001, right after the Twin Towers of the World Trade
Center were destroyed by means of intentional plane hijacking and crashing. The results were
devastating and we are still at war in 2023 as a result. With the war continuing for this long we’ve seen
countless operations and attempts to end this war once and for all, U.S. soldiers and innocent citizens of
Iraq and Afghanistan dying for the cause. The video footage was released by a self and media proclaimed “whistleblower” to attempt to expose an operation they believed to be unethical. The writer
for Wikileaks took this story on and attempted to expose the U.S. military for crimes against innocent
people and created a number of stories as to why this happened. However, the audio that was released
shows an entirely different story than the one Wikileaks attempted to tell. In this case analysis I will
argue that consequentialism shows us that Manning did not act out of loyalty to the United States and
that her actions were an unethical case of whistleblowing.
Rational loyalty refers to an employee’s willingness to remain loyal to their organization, even when
faced with moral or ethical dilemmas. This loyalty is considered rational because it is based on a belief
that the organization’s overall mission and goals are worthwhile, despite any wrongdoing that may
occur within the organization. He argues that rational loyalty can sometimes conflict with an employee’s
moral obligation to expose unethical or illegal behavior within their organization. In these cases, an
employee may choose to blow the whistle on their employer, even if it goes against their rational
loyalty. He also notes that in certain situations, an employee’s loyalty may compel them to act in order
to protect the organization’s integrity. Overall Vandekerckhove’ s paper highlights the complex interplay
between rational loyalty and whistleblowing, and suggests that the decision to blow the whistle on one’s
employer is not always a black and white situation; it absolutely contains some grey area.
As it pertains to the Manning debate, analyzing through the lenses of Vandekerckhove is no easy feat. As
an intelligence analyst for the U.S. military, Manning was exposed to a vast amount of classified
information, including evidence of potential war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Iraq. Despite having
signed a non-disclosure agreement, Manning chose to leak this information to Wikileaks, an act which
eventually led her to being charged with espionage and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. One
could argue that Manning’s decision to leak the information was a breach of her rational loyalty to the
U.S. military, which she had sworn to protect and serve. However, Vandekerckhove notes that in certain
situations, an employee’s loyalty to their organization may actually support the decision the blow the
whistle. In this case, Manning may have felt that her loyalty to the United States, as a defender of
human rights and democracy, outweighed her loyalty to the military as an organization. By exposing
potential war crimes, she may have believed that she was acting in the best interests of the organization
as a while, rather than simply pursuing her own interests or those of a particular group. The case of
Chelsea Manning provides a complex example of the relationship between rational loyalty and
whistleblowing. While her decision to leak classified information may have gone against her loyalty to
the U.S. military, it could also be seen as an act of loyalty to the values and principles that the military is
meant to uphold. Ultimately the ethics of this case are highly dependent on the situation and the
reasoning for which she made this decision and the understanding of what she did having a lifelong
impact on her.
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the morality of an action based on its
consequences. According to this theory an action is morally right if it produces the greatest amount of
good or the least amount of harm for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, one could argue that
the actions taken by Manning in leaking classified information were not morally right under a
consequentialist framework. Manning’s actions had significant consequences, both for herself and for
others. By leaking classified information, Manning put the lives of American soldiers and foreign
informants at risk. The information that she leaked also had the potential to harm national security and
compromise ongoing military operations. Moreover, the publication of leaked information had
diplomatic repercussions for the United States, damaging relationships with other countries and
potentially harming the country’s reputation. Under consequentialism, these negative consequences
would likely outweigh any potential benefits that her actions could have had. While Manning may have
believed that she was acting in the best interest of the United States and defending human rights, the
harm caused by her actions would be difficult to justify under a consequentialist framework. She had
other options available for her to address her concerns about potential war crimes and ethical
violations. She could have reported the information through official channels or sought out a trusted
journalist to share the information with, rather than leaking the classified information indiscriminately.
Under consequentialism the actions she took were not ethical right.
Internal whistleblowing as Oxley and Whittaker’s paper discussed refers to the act of reporting
misconduct or unethical behavior to someone within the organization, such as a supervisor or a
compliance officer. This type of whistleblowing is often preferred over external whistleblowing because
it allows to organization to address the issue internally and potentially avoid negative publicity or legal
repercussions. However, internal whistleblowing can be risky for the whistleblower, as they may face
retaliation from their employer or may not receive a satisfactory response to their concerns. Manning
had many avenues of reporting her concerns without alerting Wikileaks, however for an unknown
reason she decided that she would use external means of whistleblowing. External whistleblowing
involves reporting misconduct or unethical behavior to someone outsider the organization. While this
type of whistleblowing can be more effective at exposing wrongdoing while simultaneously holding the
organization accountable it can also have negative consequences for both the whistleblower and the
organization. As we know in this case Chelsea Manning was sentenced to prison for this type of
whistleblowing and the results that came from it. Organizational wrongdoing refers to any behavior or
action by an organization or its members that violates ethical or legal standards. This type of behavior
can be difficult to detect and address, especially if it is systematic or involves high-level individuals
within the organization. Oxley and Whittaker argue that whistleblowing can be a critical tool for
exposing organizational wrongdoing and holding them accountable for their actions. However,
whistleblowers also face significant personal and professional risks. In their opinion they believed that
whistleblowers should be protected and supported in their actions and organizations should have better
reporting guidelines and methods in place for whistleblowing.
As we know consequentialism holds that the ethical view of an actions is determined by its outcomes or
consequences. For this case we will study consequentialism as it relates to Oxley and Whittaker’s take
on whistleblowing. Manning’s decision to leak classified information externally had both positive and
negative consequences. On one side her actions brought to light potential war crimes committed by the
U.S. military, which could be seen as a positive outcome in terms of promoting transparency and
accountability. One the other side her actions also put many lives in danger as well as a number of other
negative consequences for a huge amount of people as discussed in an earlier topic. Manning’s attempts
at internal whistleblowing were unsuccessful as all sources point to the choice to not utilize or see this
as an option when she made the decision to do so. If she had reported internally it is possible the
situation could have been handled internally and the need for external whistleblowing would not have
existed. She could have avoided prison, losing her job, her life and not become a negative face in the
eyes of the U.S. government. From a consequentialist perspective, her actions did not fully align with the
ideals of whistleblowing outlines by Oxley and Whittaker, as they resulted in harm to others and could
have been avoided with a more effective internal whistleblowing mechanisms in place.
When it comes to consequentialism the decisions made by Manning in this case were completely
unethical. The reasons behind this are as follows: The outcome was severely negative which goes
against everything consequentialism is about. The good intentions and results did not outweigh the
damage and harm that externally reporting did. In terms of Oxley and Whittaker a better solution for
this matter would have been a reasonable attempt to internally blow the whistle before doing so
externally when that was not handled. Maybe Manning felt as if she couldn’t internally report due to the
procedures in place, in which case it could be a learning experience for the agency, however she did not
pursue this matter through those processes so we can not be sure they are at fault. In the eyes of
Vandekerckhove this is unethical because rational loyalty should have been a stronger concern for
Manning.