In this era of global interactivity and extreme media scrutiny, real-life situations and instances of behaviour that raise ethical issues and moral dilemmas continue to reverberate across all civilizations in the world. The role of the media in disseminating information to people is legion, but arising ethical issues persist to put this important institution in a collision course with germane issues that must be primarily dealt with for responsible practice (Plaisance, 2009).
These ethical issues put into perspective the need to rely on philosophical thought to decide on the proper course of action. It is the purpose of this paper to utilize both utilitarianism and Kantian theory to critically examine some underlying ethical issues relating to the claim below:
There’s almost no situation in which I’d stop filming to do something, because I think a film record of a given situation is ultimately more effective, and has greater impact. In the end, it helps more people than if I put down my camera to lend a hand (Bowden, 1987 p. 182)
To offer a critical evaluation of the above claim, it is imperative to briefly discuss the two broad classifications of philosophical thought from which utilitarianism and Kantian theory derives from.
The first classification – teleological ethics – comprise of theories which are essentially concerned with outcomes or consequences and the capacity to produce the best possible decisions. These theories are glued by the premise that ethically right decisions are those that produce maximum consequences (Albarran, 2010). To date, utilitarianism, with its axiom of the greatest good still offers the best example of teleological ethics.
The second classification – deontological ethics – comprise of ethical theories concerned with the philosophical process of arriving at decisions based on established principles (Albarran, 2010). These theories affirm that the rightness or wrongness of an action or behaviour is dependent on that particular action or behaviour and not on the outcomes or consequences it produces. Deontological ethics are best illustrated in the philosophical works of Kant.
Utilitarianism, espoused by such philosophers as David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham, among others, states that moral actions are correct to the extent that they tend to enhance the ‘greatest good for the greatest number.’ As one of the best known adaptations of consequentialism, this theory defines what is morally acceptable in terms of the “maximization of the net expected utility for all parties affected by a decision or action” (Smart & Williams, 1998 p. 83).
In other words, human beings ought to behave or act in a manner that occasion the best possible outcomes from their actions (Russo, n.d.). Consequently, acceptable behaviour or actions, according to utilitarianism, should be evaluated by rules and guidelines that, if universally followed would lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Judging by the above description, it appears that the author of the claim in discussion based his arguments on utilitarian theory. Indeed, he argues that a film record of a situation is eventually more effective, has a greater impact, not mentioning the fact that it helps more people. In essence, the film record will enhance the greatest good for the greatest number of viewers the scenario that was being filmed notwithstanding.
Such philosophical thought has serious ethical undertones since it therefore means that it actually does not concern us what kind of behaviour or actions we engage in or what our intentions are when engaging in them, as long as the outcomes of our behaviours or actions are generally positive to the wider audience.
According to Russo (n.d.), “…what all utilitarians have in common is that they accept one and only one principle of morality, the principle of utility, which states that in all our actions we must always strive to produce the greatest possible balance of good and evil” (para. 3). This therefore means that when faced with a choice between two divergent courses of action, a utilitarian will always aim to select the one that bears the best overall outcome or consequence for the majority who might be affected in one way or another by the actions.
In the claim, it is clearly evident that the author would choose the action that has a greater impact and helps more people – that of continuing to film instead of lending a hand. Again, this has serious ethical undertones assuming that the situation he is filming demands that people offer assistance such as a plane clash.
Many modern institutions, including the media and democratic institutions, are built around the principle of utilitarianism, that is, ‘the end justify the means.’ Indeed, actions are judged based on the outcomes, not on the objectives, intentions or motives (Terrall, 2007). As such, the individual would be justified to continue filming since he is bound to achieve the best possible outcomes from his action – that of assisting more people.
To argue along this continuum, however, is counterintuitive since such actions are taken more for profit orientations than for ethical considerations. When evaluated under the lenses of ethical considerations, utilitarianism in contemporary institutions, including the media, justifies the treatment of individuals as a means to an end. There arise serious ethical connotations when individuals are viewed as a means to achieve an outcome that is agreeable to the majority.
In equal measure, ethical issues arise if individuals assume that an action or behaviour is acceptable if it generates a greater sum of good than evil for all the individuals who are affected by such an action (Russo, n.d.). This, it appears, is the mentality of the individual who continues to film since filming by itself will have a greater impact and will assist many people than helping the situation.
As already mentioned elsewhere, Kantian theory is firmly rooted in deontological ethics. Kant proposed an intricate system that specified the duties endowed upon us as moral agents.
According to Plaisance (2009), “…at the core of [Kant’s] system is the claim that our human capacity for reason enables us to know these duties and that freedom enables us to act on them (p.8). As such, the foundations of Kantian theory are rationality and liberty.
For Kant, individuals are bound by obligation to act and behave morally as the only way to perform their duties to others. It is imperative to note that by moral action, Kant insinuated that individuals should test and evaluate their actions by inquiring if they could be universalized, that is, whether it would be morally acceptable if every individual applied the actions as standard of behaviour (Johnson, 2008).
It therefore follows that the individual in the filming claim would have first stopped to ponder if it was agreeable for everyone to continue filming the arising situations as opposed to lending a hand. In fact, he would have never at the first place been so sure to say that ‘there’s almost no situation in which I’d stop filming to do something…’ since he was not in a position to know or judge if such an action could be universalized to others in similar profession or situation.
This demonstrates why Kant was so strict on rationality and liberty. In a hypothetical situation, say a car accident where people are trapped inside the car, a Kantian follower would have reasoned out to first cease filming and lend a hand. If the situation was not that serious, a Kantian follower would have taken the liberty to start filming the situation. Here, the Kantian theory appears more ethically acceptable.
Kant formulated the famous ‘categorically imperative’ phrase, implying duty without exception (Plaisance, 2009). This principle demands obedience and core moral obligations that all individuals must meet. Consequently, Kant was of the opinion that individuals are owned respect not because of their professions or individual positions, but for the reason that they are human beings with ability to reason.
According to Plaisance (2009), “…this universal moral obligation requires that we treat individuals as ends in themselves and never sorely as a means to attain other goals or desires we may have” (p.9). In equal measure, the philosopher was of the opinion that morality was principally about motives. To him, motives are the basis of actions and these, not results or consequences – should be the basis for ethics.
Back to the filming claim, it is vehemently clear that the individual use the means (situations) to achieve the ends (having a greater impact and assisting more people). The Kantian theory, however, is clear that the individuals should be perceived and treated as the ends in themselves and never sorely as means. Here, the underlying ethical issue is that utilitarianism, its axiom of achieving the greatest good notwithstanding, is open to abuse in contemporary times.
In media institutions, indeed, it is rightfully or wrongfully used and depicted as being in the ‘public interest,’ and in the case of newspapers, it is being used and passed as ‘what the public is interested in.’ Such catchy phrases have serious ethical undertones since what one segment of the public is interested in may not be universalized to the other population, not mentioning the fact that the motive behind an action, say publishing a story, may not necessarily be the reason why a certain outcome is desired (Elder, 2001).
All in all, both utilitarianism and Kantian theory have been discussed at length in relation to the claim about filming. Ethical issues have been highlighted on both sides and critical appraisal offered. What is clear is that although the claim about filming is utilitarian in nature, utilitarianism raises more ethical issues than Kantian theory.
Both philosophical thoughts, however, have their advocates and critics, and it is premature to discount utilitarianism is a valid theory of ethics. Indeed, according to Terrall (2007), many modern institutions, including the media, heavily rely on utilitarianism. However, as have already been discussed, the theory has serious ethical ramifications when compared to Kantian theory.
List of References
Albarran, A.B (2010). Management of Electronic Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Elder, R (2001). Difficult Decisions: Ethical Issues for the American Media in Times of National Emergency. Web.
Johnson, R (2008). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. In: Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Plaisance, P.L (2009). Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Russo, M.S (n.d.). Utilitarianism in a nutshell. Web.
Smart, J.J.C., & Williams, B (1998). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Terrall, E (2007). The Ends or the Means? Kantian Ethics v/s Utilitarianism. Web.