Dr Harrison did the lecture on ethics with us. It kicked off with a couple of questions:
How do we determine what is:
GOOD / BAD?
ETHICAL / UNETHICAL?
RIGHT / WRONG?
How do we tell the difference between the bad, the wrong, and the simply tacky?
And of course, there are those really sleazy ones that make your hair stand on its ends.
To get a rough gauge of how we view ethics, we had a small exercise during the lecture where we were shown print and video ads, and were asked to grade them on a chart. I'd have to say, some of the ads were downright BAD. Some were boring but ethical, some were unethical but good, some were good ethical. Question is, how do you draw the line at producing a good advertisement without compromising your morals, or the public's morals for that matter?
There are 3 paradigms of Ethical Theories - Deontology, Consequentialism, and Virtue.
Deontology (now trying saying that outloud 10 times, quickly)
is basically about rules, principles and duties. It is all about doing the right thing by following those guidelines. Thus, all ethic codes are generally deontological.
On the other hand, Virtue Ethics
is all about "goodness", or happiness. They come from good habits and dispositions of characters. These habits are what constitutes to "virtues", like courage, temperance and so on. It is an intrinsic theory as compared to Deontology.
Lastly, Consequentialism (or Teleology)
I was so excited when I saw the word, inner POLS geek in me was screaming "HEYYY I KNOW THAT, YAY ME." so loudly that I thought Dr Harrison might send me out of the room.
It is simply about: the ends justify the mean.
The only thing that matters is that the right outcome is achieved, it is irrelevant how we got there.
Of all, Virtue Ethics contributes to the Golden Mean of behaviour. (don't you just love that phrase? It seems all, shiny) HANDS UP THOSE OF YOU WHO THOUGHT OF A SHINY GOLDEN EGG WHEN YOU SAW THOSE WORDS! Or am I the only one who thought of that? ):
Anyway, back to the Mean...
For example, courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice, and justice is the mean between the injustice of overzealous and excessive law, and the injustice of lawlessness. Oh boy, was that a mouthful of words.
To sum it up, ethics is essentially about the "balance". How do we know when we've crossed the line? In fact, how do we know where the line is? There's a fine line between what is ethical and what is not, and especially so as it is a very subjective matter.
Before I leave, I'll leave you with this question Dr Harrison posed to us:
"Is it more important to follow rules, or go by what you believe in? As a journalist, are codes or character more important?"
Now just think about that.
And that advert at the start...
ETHICAL? OR NOT?
No comments:
Post a Comment