When it comes to whistleblowing, I believe it could be either morally correct or incorrect depending on what the situation is. This is a strong deontological idea that revolves around doing what is right, not because others do it doesn’t make things right. I believe when it’s a situation in which there is a public safety concern than yes, it is ethically moral to whistle blow to let people know what is truly going on. Everybody has the right to know if their privacy is being protected and whether organizations and agencies are being ethically responsible. I will also argue my point that loyalty is a showing of care and that even when you don’t show loyalty to your business it’s out of respect for others and the company to. Because it can help the company correct its fallacies and make things better moving forward. The United States military is one of the most powerful armies in the world and they have kept a lot of things “under the rug” so to say. It is important that some cases be brought to light in the general public’s eyes to understand what type of actions big government agencies like the military are hiding from us. I think it is in our right as United States citizens to know what goes on in our government and raise questions when questions are concerned. That is the point of democracy after all. So, for this Case Analysis I will use deontology to show that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.

Whistle blowing has everything to do ethics and can also destroy the loyalty between a company and the whistle blower. Like I mentioned before, I believe whistle blowing can be either moral or immoral because it depends on the type of information the whistle blower gets out to the public. Vandekerckhove made a lot of good points in their article. One of the main concepts in Vandekerckhove’s reading is that there are two main reasons as to why whistle blowing is an organizational need. First one is that, as more people have more powerful decisions to make in an organization, the more organizations should know sooner rather than later when someone is taking harmful decisions to the organization. I agree with this statement because as we saw in the case of Manning it is important that organizations like the United States military get held accountable for the unethical and immoral actions that were taken by the U.S the day that attack took place. These were citizen’s lives that were affected because of a mistake of a camera for an RPG which in situations like this case, is unacceptable. The second reason in the reading is that as the responsibility for organizations or private companies increase, the public has a case when danger or wrongdoing might affect them. I agree with this, it is like what we saw a few modules back with CSR. Corporations have responsibilities that must be prioritized or else things like the public’s safety might be in concern. Deontology shows that people have reasons for their actions, whether it is right or wrong. Just like organizations have reasons to not leak private info because it is a major public concern. Or how companies may overlook their safety to save money to put into use elsewhere, which in turn, may result in vulnerabilities and potentially major data leaks. One of the main reasons I think Manning’s actions were morally justified is because the information she leaked was a major public concern because it brought to light what was really happening in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Deontology is centered around doing what’s right, not what’s wrong to make a right. So, I believe from a deontological standpoint, whistleblowing was the right thing to do in this situation. Many innocent people’s lives were ruined and the US military kept things under the table, looked over the event as if it never happened when this was easily an act of war crime. It also questions the militaries integrity because what was captured on the video was horrible and a disgusting act of immoral decency for human life.

Another point I agree with that Vandekerckhove makes is that loyalty between employee and employer is important to have. I believe that loyalty and being trustworthy is very important no matter what relationship but it’s even more important to have with your employer. It’s part of the social contract that organizations should have a built trust with their employees because it will bring many benefits like increase productivity and boost morale in the workplace. In Manning’s case, yes, she did not act out of loyalty because she leaked the video without letting anyone in her organization know. In a deontology standpoint, people will argue this as being wrong, no matter what the situation is, because it’s wrong to lie and not be loyal to others. It still doesn’t take away the fact she morally did the right thing as to whistle blow because deontology is just that, doing what is the right thing to do in any given situation. Was it wrong that Manning outed the United States military the way she did? In this case, I say no because she brought to light some of the heinous crimes the US military were able to get away with. Vandekerckhove made some interesting points that really tie into the deontology ideology and can be applied to this module’s case.

In Oxley and Wittkower’s reading they talk about traditional loyalty and how it is a usually more an expression of care rather than a requirement or contractual obligation. Their main point is that loyalty is a form of care and concern for others and should not be obligated. I believe what’s important here is when Oxley and Wittkower talk about loyalty being interpreted as a kind of partiality. I think loyalty is not only a feeling but a process of caring for somebody. The way you show loyalty however can differ. For example, let’s say there is a situation like the Manning case where you know your organization is keeping something from the public that needs to be addressed. I believe in that moment you are morally obligated to whistle blow and share that out to society. You can still be loyal to your employer/boss/co-workers, but I think the social moral code outweighs being loyal to your company at that point. I believe this ties in very well with deontology because deontology shows that people should do what is right, even if many people do what is wrong, you should not do it because it’s still wrong. This case it’s like many people are deciding to not leak the secrets but by doing so you could be harming the public’s safety so by whistle blowing you could be doing the right thing which I believe Manning was in the right to do in her case. Deontology also includes, for Kant, the ability to respect others and that must be absolute. In my point of view, doing the right thing like deontology states, not only are you doing what’s right, but you’re also pointing out what’s wrong. In this case, it was necessary that the public sees what the US military was doing but it was also necessary for the military so they could be held accountable for their actions and strive to change. So, I believe it is fine to whistle blow a company, but it is not alright to whistle blow an individual like the CEO for example, in a public manner. This is because it is obviously a huge threat to one’s privacy which is what the deontologists ideology goes against.

Oxley and Wittkower also talk about loyalty and how it can impact whistle blowing. They argue that not only can whistle blowing be ok, but it can be good because when you care about something or someone you want to make it better or bring something to light. In Manning’s case we see how bringing the clips of what the military did in Iraq caused people to be outraged. She not only did it because she cares about the people but also because she cares about making the military better, that way stuff like what was shown on those videos never happen again on a battlefield. It shows she cares about the military and wants to actively improve on it. I can see how this correlates with deontology because this ideology is about doing what’s right in hopes of making something better for the future. Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, whistleblowing can be a form of good criticism towards the company as well. It can help the company or organization realize what it needs to fix and get better at. It also shows customers or the outsiders what really goes on in the company/organization. A great real world example is a heavy smoker trying to smoke less to eventually stop smoking all together. The right action to take is to not even get into smoking in the first place but it’s still right even if you are a heavy smoker because stopping, or at least trying to stop smoking is the right thing to do. There may be different reasons why people get into smoking, it reduces stress and anxiety or because they got peer pressured, but it’s still not healthy and not the right action to take. Being loyal is important because it shows that you care and are willing to do what’s right to improve it.

I believe Manning did the right thing. She did what she needed to do to get the public’s attention on issues that were happening that were being kept behind closed doors and away from the public. She did it because she cares about the safety of the public and wants people to not be lied to by their own government. It also brought into light the true horrors that the US military operations were performing overseas and how it was affecting innocent civilians somewhere else. From a deontology point of view, I believe she did the right thing to do in this situation and leak the evidence. Like I said about loyalty, loyalty can look like stabbing someone’s back, if it’s for their own good. This to me is still a sign of loyalty as you want to see this person or organization do better. Hopefully the US military learned their lessons from this incident and never carry out careless operations overseas again.