Course Material

Alexandria Tanner

PHIL 335E

April 12^th, 2022

CA-5 Whistleblowing

            In the YouTube video of released footage from an US military official titled “Collateral Damage?” we witness multiple killings from the Apache helicopter in Baghdad, Iraq. What is unique about the situation is that at no point was any of the targets positively identified prior to permission to fire. The very first incident the pilot(s) and gunmen circled a group of 8 individuals who happened to be holding cameras, but while circling one camera was mistaken for and RPG. Prior to the misidentification request for fire was asked for and approved… again with no positive ID. The Apache then proceeded to fire on all 8 people and reported back that all individuals had either AK-47s or RPGs in their possession. Rules of engagement at the time permitted the sight or clear possession of a weapon justified fire.

            Only one of the ‘targets’ survived, and they anticipated and hoped he would maybe reach for a weapon so they could confirm the final kill. He did not, however; a van that held children, came to rescue the wounded man, and remove the bodies of the 7 that were killed. The Apache was given permission to fire on the vehicle, killing the wounded man and those children. 20 minutes later the ground troops reported gunfire 300 meters from the initial shooting. The pilot(s) and gunmen witness one individual with a weapon entered the building, and two more weaponless individuals shortly after. They request fire upon the building because it is occupied by “individuals with weapons” although they are not sure of this, and no positive ID was made. Permission was granted an upon doing so a civilian is walking past the building and is killed in the crossfire. In this Case Analysis I will argue how Ethics of Care shows us that Manning did not act out of loyalty to the United States, and her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.

            The dictionary definition of a “whistleblower” is someone who reveals something surreptitious or private. Usually, they are an employee who discloses information either internally (higher ups) or externally (lawmakers, media, watchdog orgs., etc.). The whistleblower most times chooses to disclose the private information because he or she believes it is in violation of something: an abuse of power, a violation of the law or basic rights, or just plain immoral. Ethics of Care primarily focuses on justice and impartiality and stresses the utilitarian belief that you should act in the interest of the majority because the greatest good = the greatest number.

In the story, Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty by Wim Vanderkerckhove he argues that there is no contradiction between the need of loyalty and any “institutionalized whistle blowing”.  He poses the question of why whistleblowing would be an organizational need for an institution? Vanderkerckhove gives two answers, the first being because there are more people, and more people equal a larger authority behind decision making. Organizations/Companies should be aware of any acts that are taking place that are harmful to them; Managers and the board are the center of this idea as they should be aware of what is going on or going wrong. His second answer was the presence of the “watchdog value” meaning as responsibility increases for the company the public has a case when wrongdoing happens that might affect them. Monitoring and detecting the presence of anything that might appear to be out of control or harmful.

Whistleblowing itself blows away the belief that employees have an obligation to the company. On page 226, Duska (1997) exclaims, “most business ethicists claim that employees have some obligation to the company or employer”. I agree with this statement because if there were no loyalty on either the employee or employers’ side there would be no sense in job security or trust. Imagine at the slightest inconvenience or mistake your job was in jeopardy and you were ready to be replaced, even if you are the best at what you do. Companies would also hate to lose their best employees to competition, and they expect some sort of loyalty from them upon hire. It would be a waste of resources and an investment if anyone could easily snatch your employees and/or buy them because they don’t value their position at your company. So, I believe loyalty is an important factor in that sense, but I also believe that if that company were participating in any activities that were harmful to the public or their employees that loyalty goes out the window. The “Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics writes that loyalty refers to a willing-ness to sacrifice… a loyal individual designates someone who is willing to act for benefit of someone or something else” (227). Loyalty contributes to organizational effectiveness and because of that should be taken seriously, however, in the event the organization is participating in events that are harmful anyone that blows the whistle is not bonded by that loyalty nor are they breaking it. The only thing I would say is to make sure your facts are correct, you are whistle blowing for the right reason (good of the people/majority), and you are prepared for the consequences of blowing the whistle.

In the last paper we analyze, Care and Loyalty in the Workplace by Julianna Oxley and D.E. Wittkower loyal is related and compared to care. In order to understand loyalty in the workplace as a kind of care you must create an account for when it is morally appropriate to demonstrate loyalty in a business context. This idea of care in loyalty in the workplace is the epitome of ethics of care in my opinion. The ethics of care holds ‘caring relationships’ as the moral basis of how to treat the people closet to you. This paper argues how loyalty to a corporation, or your job is sometimes earned but is not an obligation. Care ethics is the framework for how we view “the nature of loyalty”, the commitment to something in virtue of our own care or concern for that something. There are three core commitments of care ethical theories, and they state: first, the language of care is central to our everyday lives. I interpreted that as everyone caring about something and demonstrates that throughout our lives and daily. Secondly, “the concepts, metaphors, and images associated with the practice of caring, rather than contracting, best express the dynamics of the moral life and should thus be used in ethical analysis” (224). The images and concepts we naturally associate with care go hand and hand with our association to right/wrong and the accepted standards of a ‘moral life’. The third core commitment is that moral agent must seek to nurture and preserve the most solid relationships you have. Basically, do not take those genuine and meaningful relationships for granted or treat them with anything other than care.

Loyalty tends to emerge while keeping the core commitments of care ethics in mind. How? Might you ask, well, ethics of care holds the bonds we make and the relationships we have very highly. They are viewed as valuable pieces of our lives that help mold our own identity. Loyalty is developed through the care and concern we possess and is often the product of a truly caring relationship between individuals. Therefore, allowing loyalty to be interpreted as partiality for those we care for and is justified on the basis that, that loyalty is reciprocated. Making it selective and similar to favoritism. The paper looks at loyalty in the workplace as well and argues that loyalty itself cannot be contractually mandated. Because you cannot do that ‘loyalty’ in the terms of a contract is described as care and companies tend to list ways you can go above and beyond your duties to care for the company. This could look like attending events outside of work, donating money to charities supported by your company, participating in work activities (Secret Santa, etc.) are all ways you could show you care. We do similar things to show your care for people in our lives all the time but again aren’t things that would be listed in a contract nor is it obligation to participate, usually.

To conclude, in this Case Analysis I argued how the tool Ethics of Care showed us that Manning the Whistleblower that gave us insight on incidents in Baghdad did not act out of loyalty for her country, however her actions were morally appropriate because it was for the greater good. I believe Manning acted out of loyalty towards the innocent lives that were lost and the citizens at that could not fathom what sort of things take place in “battles”. She also set a tone for what should be allowed and sparked some change in how/when to engage. I went on to relate other examples of whistle blowing and the cause for ‘loyalty’ specifically in the workplace. In those conclusions, I believe that blowing the whistle for a moral cause and the overall protection of many is not a disloyal act. It can be argued that loyalty is being upheld and loyalty is owed to the majority and not to a company. Ethics of care in the workplace it an appropriate characterization for ‘loyalty’ because loyalty, by definition, cannot ethically be contractually mandated.

Alexandria Tanner

PHIL 335E

May 1^st, 2022

Cyberwarfare

Iran and Israel are currently exchanging cyberattack blows back and forth with increasing severity. The attacks and retaliations between one another have not explicitly been to cause death, but by proxy the probability of death occurring has increased. While the attacks have been happening for over a decade by now, the civilian effects have been increasing. From Israel causing Iran citizens to be unable to fill up gas from gas stations to Iran retaliating by targeting hospital systems in Israel, the cyberattacks are escalating in damage. With Iran having political sanctions, it is difficult for them to upgrade and stay updated on software patches, resulting in cyberattacks becoming both easier and more frequent. Due to both this and from the difficulty of tracing cyber-attacks, this has led to an easier method of waging war without directly causing a loss of life. In this case analysis, I will argue that deontology shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is just a war because the escalation of the war lies in protecting their people and deterring threats, without the added concepts of having a war to accomplish what the enemy would perceive as good things.

Boylan argues that the just war theory, as it currently stands, is out of date and needs to be revised in accordance with technological innovations. While Boylan argues that “the difference between sabotage and cyber warfare is matter of degree”, the matter of degree is a relative term that is open to interpretation from the victim’s side. In this point he argues that if just one company or group of people were attacked digitally, then this would be a minor offence equivalent to breaking a law. On the other side, if an entire navy ship was targeted and taken offline while the attacking country took advantage of this, then that would be a war crime. These differences are not black and white however, but hundreds of shades of gray as it comes down to the respective laws of the country where the attack took place. In the United States of America, and attack like DDoS on a company would result in criminal penalties akin to a fine and jail time, an attack of this nature to a different country could result in harsher penalties depending on their respective laws. In this nature, Boylan argues that it is necessary to have a new Geneva convention to come to a consensus on the severity that should be interpreted universally by cyber-attacks.

    In the case of the attacks between Iran and Israel, both attacks clearly fall into the former category talked about previously. To shed confusion, I will refer to the attacks on a company or group of people without bodily harm regarding the country’s most likely consequences if the attacker was a citizen of the victim. Under this idea, the attacks that both countries have launched at one another have not seriously crippled each other’s infrastructure. Imagine a sink in a bathroom. Boylan’s concepts of the intentions and consequences from a cyber-attack can be viewed as either putting tape underneath the faucet to prevent the flow of water versus taking a sledgehammer and breaking the faucet all together. Under the first idea, all one must do is remove the tape and the faucet works fine, whereas under the latter the entire faucet must be repaired. Israel could have deleted and distorted the entire system for operating all of their pumps and embed a virus that actively deletes any added fixes, thus causing massive infrastructure damages and possibly leading to the need for massive hardware replacement. Instead of this, the damage was light enough that it can almost be viewed as just sending a message. This message basically said “Hey, we could have crippled you, but we didn’t. Stop what you are doing or else we will” by showing how they could infiltrate their systems. Iran responded to this with a similar concept but escalating the severity by targeting a hospital.

    Under the ethical tool of Deontology, both countries are doing exactly what they should do given the respective situation they are in. Kant’s idea that one must always act in a moral way is a relative concept depending on which side of a war you are on. To the citizens of Iran, it is moral to protect and fight for them and deter any threats of war in a way that stops a response. The same can be said for Israel’s interpretation of the war. Therefore, both countries are taking the best response and measures that they can in order to prevent loss of life on their own citizens while still asserting dominance that they will not just roll over and take an attack. As opposed to a direct loss of life, both countries are taking a more anonymous and indirect path of violence by not specifically setting out to kill or seriously injure, but rather extremely inconvenience the other country. The attack on the hospital was not specifically set out to kill anyone, even though that may be an unintended effect, but rather show that they have the capacity to target everything including hospitals.

    On the other hand, Taddeo argues that not only does cyberwarfare most likely “cause none or very little casualties”, but that it can be used to resolve conflicts. The ability of cyberwarfare to resolve conflicts while avoiding bloodshed is an important understanding in that it is more akin to diplomatic talks than it is loss of life. Additionally, who exactly is a civilian and who is a military member relatively becomes far more blurred, as with cyber-attacks it is no longer a necessary requirement to be in the military off in another country commanding or serving with troops in order to wage a war. Rather, it can be done from the comfort of your home. This advancement in the idea of a just war is argued to allow for cyberwarfare to have a place in how it not only can be used to deter a full on physical, traditional war but that it allows for the country to defend itself without exhausting life on either side.

    From Taddeo’s understanding in relation to the conflict between Iran and Israel, the intention of performing these cyber-attacks is done for two reasons. To deter a further escalation of the conflict and to avoid specific bloodshed on either side, as both of these ideas would specifically lead to an all-out war involving military troops, mutual casualties, and the prospect of losing. It is ironic in this case then that the cyberattacks between the two countries have gone on for a decade without either one stopping the attacks, but instead escalating the situation. With what Taddeo argues is a just war, the war between Iran and Israel that is happening right now is indeed a just war as it is both the path of least resistance and allows for neither one to commit such atrocities that peace is out of the question. As argued previously, both countries could have launched far worse attacks against each other during each attack, but instead chose to basically show the other country the capacity they have for attacking and how it could be far worse if need be.

    Under the concepts of Deontology, yet again it is shown that both countries are arguing for protection of their own people that is being done for good reasons. Each country is not retaliating against one another in a blatant attempt to cause loss of life or critically injure the infrastructure of the other, but instead in both an attempt at a resolution while still coming out on top and showing that they will not back down from a threat. Under the eyes of deontology, a good thing is being done for good reasons, and therefore each country has the moral high ground in respect to their people. The difficult part of assessing this situation is that only up until now do both countries have the moral high ground. In the future, depending on how this situation continues, this may not remain the case as the situation has been shown to be escalating. If this does lead to bloodshed, then it would not be a just war as bad things would be happening, even if they are for good reasons. 

    As it currently stands, the cyberwar between the two countries has been shown to be a just war. This has been shown between both the understandings of Boylan and Taddeo to currently exist as a just war. Neither country has been launching attacks with the specific intention of bloodshed, but instead with the hope that the conflict will end while avoiding direct bloodshed. With the types of attacks launched by both countries, the loss of life could have been far greater than anything that did happen, and major infrastructure attacks could have also taken place. Again, it is important to highlight that this situation is not over, and appears to still be escalating, so it is difficult to gauge the situation in a complete manner. Neither country has shown to be backing down, and therefore while the war is just, the war has not been successful. It remains to be seen if the current conflict will evolve into something more deadly and serious, but for now the conflict is just on both sides and happening for the protection and betterment of their own people. It should be noted though that a more diplomatic approach could be more successful at ending this conflict.

Pages: 1 2