In 2010, Chelsea Manning, who was a U.S intelligence analyst, had leaked a large number of classified military documents and videos that included the most famous video “Collateral Murder” to Wikileaks.  This footage showed a U.S Apache helicopter target and attack that killed several people in Baghdad that included two journalists from Reuters.  Manning’s intention from what she stated was to expose what she saw as unethical military behavior and to start a debate about how the U.S conducts its affairs in the Iraq war.  While her actions were condemned by the government that ultimately led to her conviction under the Espionage Act, many have argued that her decision constituted a moral act of whistleblowing intended to prevent future harm and promote greater accountability.  

 This case raises important ethical questions about loyalty, responsibility and the obligations individuals have not only to their country and institutions but also to fellow human beings.  Manning could have acted out of loyalty to the military hierarchy or national secrecy but she instead chose to act from a position of concern for others’ well being that were both harmed by the U.S military’s actions and believed the American public had the right to know what was being done.  Manning’s actions invite an analysis not simply of legal duty or justice but also of relational responsibility and care. In this case analysis I will argue that ethics of care shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States but loyalty to its people and values rather than its institutions and her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.

Vandekerckhove’s work on whistleblowing emphasizes its moral complexity and the contextual factors that shape how whistleblowers are judged.  One of his key ideas is that whistleblowing is not just an act of defiance but can also be seen as a form of ethical resistance that is driven by a sense of moral obligation to others.  Vanderchove also introduces the concept of communicative integrity which describes how whistleblowing can be a constructive way to initiate engagement with institutional failures by attempting to bring about change through information disclosure.  According to Vandekerckhove, whistleblowing is a dialogical process that involves ethical judgement, courage and a large sense of responsibility not only to one’s institution, but to those impacted by the actions. 

Applying these ideas to Manning, we can state that her actions were an attempt to restore communicative integrity within a military system that, in her point of view, had gone silent on its own wrongdoing.  Manning’s choice to release the “Collateral Murder” video and thousands of military cables was not an impulsive move but in response to what she saw as systemic disregard for human life, transparency and accountability.  While she did violate the rules around secrecy, her actions can be seen as ethically motivated by the desire to bring public awareness to the realities of war, especially with civilian casualties and the lack of oversight.  

Through the scope of ethics of care, Manning’s whistleblowing gains further ethical depth.  Ethics of care focuses on relationships, contextual responsibilities and the promotion of mutual flourishing, especially in situations of power imbalance.  Her actions demonstrate a commitment to interdependence as she prioritized the well being of Iraqi civilians, journalists and even to her fellow Americans who she believed deserved to know what was being done in their name.  Care ethics resist abstract or universal rules in favor of particular situated acts of care and concern.  Manning’s whistleblowing actions were not about disloyalty to the U.S but about a deeper loyalty to the people and the democratic values she thought the country stood for.  

While justice based approaches might harshly criticize Manning for violating laws and procedures, a care based ethic focuses on her vulnerability, empathy and awareness to others suffering.  She did not act out of personal gain or revenge but instead she risked everything like her freedom, her career and perhaps her safety because she could not stand by and watch the harm being done.  That emotional and ethical labor is central to the care of ethics.  Her decision to stop participating in what she saw as unethical behavior shows an ethic of care for herself as a moral agent that refused to remain complicit in violence.  

Vandekerckhove’s framing of whistleblowing aligns with care of ethics in its insistence that whistleblowers are not mere rebels or traitors, but more often moral actors operating from a relational ethic. Manning’s disclosure was not aimed at destroying institutions but at renewing them by calling for more transparency and accountability.  Her hope, as she stated, was that the public, once informed, would act to prevent further injustices.  In this way, whistleblowing becomes more of an act of care not only for the present but for the future as well.  Using the ethics of care to assess Manning’s case through Vandekerckhove’s framework, we can conclude that her actions were ethically motivated and morally justified.  Her concern for others, attention to suffering and the commitment to honesty reflect an ethic of care that strays away with rigid institutional loyalty. Rather than betraying her country, she cared enough about the people and principles to expose the uncomfortable truths. She fully exemplified ethical courage and relational responsibility making her actions a moral case for whistleblowing. 

In the work by Oxley and Wittkower, they explore how the ethics of care can provide a deeper and more human centered understanding of ethical decision making, especially in the contexts where justice based approaches fall short.  They argue that care is not a feeling but a practice rooted in responsiveness, attentiveness, and relationship building.  Unlike the abstract rule following, care ethics requires us to understand the needs of others within their specific social, historical and emotional contexts.  In this way, care of ethics emphasizes the value of interdependence, recognizing that individuals are never isolated but always embedded within networks of mutual responsibility and support.

Oxley and Wittkower use care of ethics to analyze whistleblowing as a form of relational responsibility.  They suggest that whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning may act not out of rebellion or ambitions, but from a deep sense of obligation to others, to the people harmed by institutional actions and to the broader society misled in the dark.  This contrasts from the justice based view that might see whistleblowing only in terms of rules broken or legal consequences.  Through care of ethics, Manning’s actions become an expression of concern and moral attention to the suffering of others, not a betrayal of duty but a transformation of it.  Applying this view to Manning, we can see her as acting not in opposition to her duties as a soldier, but in alignment with a different duty that is rooted in care, honesty and the desire to prevent harm.  The Collateral murder video she leaked that showed the U.S military personnel killing civilians and journalists in Iraq.  Watching that footage, Manning expressed deep horror, not just at the deaths, but at the indifference shown by her fellow soldiers.  This moment reflects the ethics of care at its core, the attentiveness of the needs and vulnerabilities of others, especially those that are made invisible by systems of power.  

From this perspective, Manning’s actions were not reckless, but relational.  She deeply cared about the civilians who were killed, the families who never knew why and the American public who were being denied the truth of this scene.  Care ethics values mutual flourishing and Manning seemed to believe that only by revealing the truth could a society build an accountable and empathetic view to thrive.  Her decision to act was grounded in hope that others, once informed, would also care too and that collective caring could lead to institutional change.  

Care ethics shows us that Manning had a sense of self-care, which Oxley and Wittkower emphasize as equally important.  Manning’s internal struggle while continuing to serve while feeling morally compromised reflects a tension between obedience and integrity. By choosing to act, she preserved her moral agency, caring for herself as someone who would not ignore injustice.  This is crucial in understanding that she did not act out of a place of selfishness but from a need to reconcile her values with her actions and to truthfully in relation to others.  Oxley and Wittkower remind us that caring relationships are also asymmetrical. Manning had power but not enough power to make change but had enough to act on behalf of those who had none.  She used her access not for personal gain but to help others. That kind of moral courage is vital in care of ethics.  When viewing the ethics of care and Oxley and Wittkower frameworks, Manning’s actions fully represent a moral form of whistleblowing.  She responded to the needs and suffering of others, broke through institutional silence and acted out as a genuine desire for mutual flourishing. Her care extended to people she didn’t know and would never meet and yet she still took responsibility for their lives, even at great costs for her personal life.  

With this case analysis, I showed that Manning’s decision to release classified footage should be understood under the ethics of care as a moral stand for whistleblowing, grounded in interdependence with others and her concern for mutual flourishing.  With the frameworks created by Oxley, Wittkower and Vandekerckhove, it becomes clear that Manning was only motivated by selfishness or disloyalty, but by a relational sense of moral responsibility.  Her care extended far beyond national boundaries, military hierarchy and her own personal risk that was toward a concern for human life and truth.  This analysis also reminds us that whistleblowing is rarely a clean or easy act. It involves tension, sacrifice, and often, great personal cost. But as care ethics teaches us, ethical action is not about following rules, it is about being responsive to the needs of others, preserving dignity, and protecting life wherever possible. In that sense, Manning’s decision to blow the whistle, though controversial, was an act of deep care for herself, for others, and for the possibility of a more honest, accountable world.