I'm not sure I follow. I'm granting the possibility that the outcome of her leak was ultimately negative, but that's not related to her intentions, nor to whether or not her intentions are morally or practically relevant.
Edit, I guess I'm thinking of the opposing question: Is there information that someone in Manning's position could get which, if it exists, any system which created it or kept it secret should not be allowed to exist, let alone have the authority of law?
Intentions matter, then. But maybe we're talking past each other?
If we lived in the same moral universe as them, they would be doing the right thing. The thought does give me pause, from time to time.
But the point is not to redeem Manning's actions in a utilitarian sense. The facts are that she saw something (war) she found unconscionable, she wanted to do something about it, and she sacrificed about as much as she possibly could without dying-- maybe more, now that she's one of the least free people on the planet. It's not that hard to comprehend a moral philosophy where she does actually deserve points for effort.
If you're asking me to just look at utility, it's very hard for me to get around the fact that the book is still being written. I can see the argument that indiscriminate leaking causes damage, and damage to well-functioning systems is bad, but I can also see the argument that the historical record is full of state secrets kept for banal or evil reasons and the proper functioning of the current intelligence apparatus may be doing more harm in a human sense than could possibly be justified, if we just knew it were happening.
The irony is that ultimately, I just have to trust that there are enough people with good hearts working in the system that if something unconscionable is going on, it won't stay secret for long. So in these circumstances I'm actually much more worried about not judging by intentions enough, lest the well-intentioned decide to stay home.
Yes, and; while Snowden gives conference talks from exile, she's facing charges and indefinite solitary confinement as punishment for a suicide attempt.
Naive and misguided, perhaps, but you really can't argue she didn't risk (and lose) far more while basically trying to do the right thing.
> Then why do group of atoms (eg. gold) have a color, but not an individual atom?
I think the point is the question implicitly assumes you can take an atom, blow it up to the size of a softball, and then observe what color the softball is. It's correct to reply that atoms are actually a smaller-scale phenomenon than color, so the color of the softball is "not applicable". (With the correction pointing out that sometimes individual atoms do exhibit "colored" phenomena, although it's not the same as most colors, and doesn't apply to most atoms.)
"If the atoms don't have color, why does the substance" is a great philosophical question, similar to the question of why words have meaning, but not letters. By analogy I'd probably start with something like "atoms make color, but that doesn't mean they have it".
Edit, I guess I'm thinking of the opposing question: Is there information that someone in Manning's position could get which, if it exists, any system which created it or kept it secret should not be allowed to exist, let alone have the authority of law?
Intentions matter, then. But maybe we're talking past each other?