PHIL 355E Case Analysis on Whistleblowing
The YouTube video “Collateral Murder?” by Al Jazeera, analyzes footage from wikileaks, during the war in Iraq in 2007. The Wikileaks footage shows an Apache helicopter firing upon Iraqi citizens, who the helicopter crew mistakened for armed individuals. This group of people even included journalists, who were killed in the aftermath. As the helicopter crew fires upon these people, the Al Jazeera analysis makes it clear that some of these individuals who were killed were not armed insurgents, but rather innocent civilians, including innocent children. The wikileaks footage also includes audio of the helicopter crew making inappropriate comments regarding the situation, and the casualties. This footage was only made available through a military whistleblower, Chelsea Manning. Manning releasing the footage can be justified by virtue ethics, which is a moral/ethical theory that focuses on the character and virtues of an individual as the primary factors in determining what is morally right or wrong. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that virtue ethics shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, and her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing. The footage that she leaked may have depicted immoral atrocities, but Manning did the moral and loyal thing by releasing the footage, and showing Americans what’s really going on in Iraq.
First, I would like to explore an article written by Wilm Vanderekerckhove, “Whistleblowing and Rational Loyalty”. This article explores the two central concepts of Whistleblowing and Rational Loyalty. To start, Whistleblowing is defined as the act of an individual, commonly an employee or an insider of an organization, to disclose information about unethical or illegal activities within an organization to individuals capable of taking corrective action (like a higher authority within the organization). Vanderekerckhove discusses how whistleblowing often involves a moral dilemma. Employees may feel a sense of loyalty to their organization, coworkers, and superiors. But, they also may be confronted with knowledge of actions/policies that violate ethical standards or the law. This can create a tension between loyalty and the duty to uphold ethical principles.
Another concept discussed by Vanderekerckhove is Rational Loyalty. The concept of rational loyalty suggests that employees should balance their loyalty to their organization with their moral or ethical duty to report wrongdoing when necessary. To put it simply, rational loyalty emphasizes that an employee should exercise their right to whisleblow, but they should consider the circumstances and consequences before doing so. Rational Loyalty recognizes that loyalty to one’s employer isn’t absolute and must be tempered by ethical considerations. Vanderekerckhove emphasizes that employees should critically evaluate if the wrongdoing of an organization is sufficient enough to warrant whistleblowing, taking into account the potential harm, legal obligations, and ethical responsibilities. Rational loyalty also emphasizes that employees shouldn’t blindly protect their organization, but rather act in the interests of society and the organization’s long-term health.
Vanderekerckhove’s concept of rational loyalty can be used to explain how Manning was loyal to her country and how this was a moral case of whistleblowing. While you could argue that Manning committed treason by releasing the footage, and thus was not loyal to her country, an argument can be made that she was. Manning releasing the footage was an act of her being unloyal to her government, but she was being loyal to the people of her country. Western media during this time often depicted the United States as the good guys and Iraq as the bad guys, contrary to the footage. The footage reveals the truth behind the Iraq war, showcasing how the United States isn’t as morally right as the media makes it out to be. Manning’s actions revealed the truth of the war to many, which shows her loyalty to the people of her country.
Vanderekerckhove’s concept of rational loyalty is very similar to the concept of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics, as mentioned, focuses on the character and virtues of an individual, but it also promotes the idea of balance. Rational loyalty suggests that when deciding to blow the whistle, individuals should consider the proportional response to the wrongdoing they have observed (encourages individuals to consider a balance). Virtue ethics advises against excessive actions and encourages whistleblowers to seek a balanced approach that aligns with virtuous character traits, such as temperance. In the case of Manning, I believe that she was right to blow the whistle based on the circumstances, and I believe that rational loyalty and virtue ethics support Manning’s decision.
I would also like to explore another article, this one written by Juliana Oxley and D.E. Wittkower, “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace” in “Applying Care Ethics to Business”. This article in particular discusses the concepts of care ethics in the workplace and loyalty in the workplace. To start, Care ethics is a moral and ethical theory that emphasizes the significance of care, empathy, and relationships in decision making. In the workplace, care ethics promotes a more compassionate and ethical approach to managing employees and conducting business. They discuss how care ethics challenges traditional profit-driven business models by emphasizing the importance of taking into account the well being of others. (employees, customers, stakeholders, etc). Care ethics emphasizes the importance of maintaining the physical and emotional well-being of their employees. Organizations can achieve this by providing safe working conditions, promoting work-life balance, and creating a workplace environment of respect and trust. Oxley and Wittkower also discuss how care ethics recognizes and values the individuality of each employee. It encourages a more personalized and empathetic approach to management, where employee needs are taken into consideration. This approach to management results in higher job satisfaction, increased loyalty, and stronger commitment from employees, they argue.
Another key concept discussed by Oxley and Wittkower is loyalty in the workplace, and how loyalty and care ethics are closely related. Loyalty in the workplace refers to the commitment and dedication of employees to their organization. Loyalty involves a feeling of allegiance, trust, and the motivation to contribute positively to the success of the company. They explain how care ethics can be used to foster loyalty, by creating a work environment where employees feel valued and supported. They argue that when employees feel that their well-being is valued by the organization, employees are more likely to feel more committed and more loyal to the organization. Loyalty in the workplace has several benefits, including reduced turnover and increased employee engagement.
Care ethics and loyalty can help explain why Manning may have chosen to blow the whistle and release the footage. Perhaps Manning felt that she was not valued within her workspace. It is possible that Manning felt like her well being was not being taken into account in her workplace. These two things combined with her gaining access to and seeing the footage could be the reason she decided to blow the whistle. However, the argument could be made that she was satisfied with her job and her workplace, but based on only the knowledge I’ve gained from this case (that being the Al Jazeera video), I don’t know whether or not she was satisfied or dissatisfied with her workplace. So in my view, it is safe to assume that Manning was dissatisfied with the conditions of her workplace, based only off of the fact that she released the footage.
Even though Oxley and Wittkower place heavy emphasis on care ethics, we can also use virtue ethics to assess the case, as care ethics and virtue ethics are related in some ways. They are both related in the sense that they both focus on context. Virtue and care ethics recognize that ethical decisions should take into account the specific circumstances and relationships involved. Care ethics acknowledges the importance of understanding the unique needs and vulnerabilities of those in our care, and virtue ethics encourages a balanced and contextually appropriate response to moral dilemmas. So in the case of Manning, from an ethics of care standpoint, it was good that she leaked the footage because it brought awareness to how people in the middle east were being treated by the government, and from a virtue ethics standpoint, it was good that she leaked the footage because it was an act of honesty (revealing the truth of what’s happening in Iraq). Both care and virtue ethics, as seen here, can be used to justify Manning’s decision to blow the whistle, based on the context of the situation.
Chelsea Manning whistleblowing and releasing the video of American soldiers firing upon innocent iraqis was an act of loyalty towards the American people and it was morally right. Wilm Vanderekerckhove’s concept of “rational loyalty” emphasizes that an employee should exercise their right to whisleblow, but they should consider the circumstances and consequences before doing so. In Manning’s case, she was justified to blow the whistle and release the footage because even though Manning would face severe consequences for doing so, her actions would reveal the truth of the military’s actions in certain situations to millions of americans, which aids in making Americans rethinking how much they really trust their government. The article by Oxley and Wittkower explains how care ethics and loyalty go hand-in-hand, which they explain that care ethics can be used to foster loyalty, creating a work environment where employees feel valued and supported. This could possibly be one of the reasons that Manning blew the whistle; she didn’t feel valued or supported in her workplace. You can make an argument that what Manning did was wrong, because her actions put national security at risk and she violated her duty to protect classified information. In my eyes, she did the right thing, because she shed light on atrocities and human rights violations that the United States was committing in the middle east.