Introduction

In 2010, U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning leaked a classified video that would later be called Collateral Murder. The footage showed a U.S. military helicopter in Iraq opening fire on a group of people, killing over a dozen, including two Reuters journalists. From the audio and commentary, it’s clear the soldiers believed they were attacking armed enemies, but they mistook cameras for weapons. Manning shared this video, and many other documents, with WikiLeaks because she believed the public had a right to know what was happening. She said her goal wasn’t to hurt the U.S., but to live up to its core values by exposing wrongdoing that was being hidden.

In this Case Analysis, I’ll argue that virtue ethics shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, not in the sense of following orders, but in the sense of standing up for its foundational values. Her decision to release the video was a moral act of whistleblowing, rooted in courage, integrity, and concern for others. Using ideas from Vandekerckhove and Commers, and from Oxley and Wittkower, I’ll show that her actions were not about betrayal but about holding power accountable in the name of justice.

Vandekerckhove and Commers

Vandekerckhove and Commers talk about loyalty in a way that goes beyond just doing what you’re told. To them, real loyalty means sticking to the deeper values of the group or country you’re a part of. If a government or institution is doing something wrong, just following orders isn’t loyalty; it’s avoidance. They argue that sometimes the most loyal thing a person can do is speak out, especially if what’s happening goes against the ideals the group claims to stand for, like justice or fairness. And if someone tries to fix things from the inside and gets nowhere, whistleblowing can be a rational and moral response.

This fits what Manning did. She joined the Army with a sense of duty, but when she saw what was happening in Iraq, especially in the video, she felt it completely went against what the U.S. is supposed to stand for. She reportedly tried to raise concerns internally but felt ignored. From her perspective, the government was acting in ways that didn’t reflect the American values she believed in. So, she went public, not to destroy anything, but to defend those values.

From Vandekerckhove’s point of view, this isn’t betrayal. It’s a painful, difficult form of loyalty: standing up for the right thing even when your side doesn’t want to hear it.

If we look at this through the lens of virtue ethics, which focuses on a person’s character, Manning’s actions show several key virtues. She showed courage because she knew she’d face serious consequences. She showed integrity by staying true to her values even when it meant going against authority. And she showed justice by trying to make sure the public knew what was happening in their name.

Of course, she broke laws and leaked sensitive information, but virtue ethics asks why someone acted, not just what rules they broke. And Manning’s actions were motivated by a desire to do the right thing, not for fame or revenge. That makes it, in this framework, a moral case of whistleblowing.

Oxley and Wittkower

Oxley and Wittkower look at loyalty through the lens of care ethics. They say loyalty isn’t just about rules or hierarchy, it’s about real, human relationships. In the workplace or the military, it means recognizing how your actions affect other people. Loyalty should come from mutual respect, not blind obedience. If an organization is hurting people and refusing to change, sometimes loyalty means stepping outside of it to protect those being harmed.

In this light, Manning’s actions weren’t just about rules or national secrets. They were about real human beings, innocent civilians, grieving families, and a public that was being kept in the dark. By releasing the video, Manning was showing care for the victims and for the American people, who had a right to know what their government was doing. Her loyalty wasn’t to the military as an institution; was to the people it’s supposed to serve.

If we return to virtue ethics here, we can see that Manning acted with compassion, another key virtue. She saw suffering and injustice and couldn’t look away. She also used practical wisdom, called phronesis in virtue ethics, to weigh the possible outcomes and decide that transparency was more important than secrecy in this case. Some might disagree with her methods, but from a character-based view of ethics, her motivation and courage count for a lot.

In combining care-based loyalty with virtue ethics, Manning’s actions still come across as moral. She didn’t act selfishly or rashly. She acted out of genuine concern for others and a desire to right a wrong, even if it meant sacrificing her freedom.