Ethics

Week 8’s lecture started off with trying to gage what we perceive to be ethical in terms of Australian advertising. As people, with hearts, with courage and with brains (for the most part), we all have some sort of moral compass. The exercise was also a good indicator of which of us were burgeoning sociopaths, who would eventually end up on the news for some god-awful crime.  I mean, I for one found most of these hilarious:

 But lets be realistic, just because I laughed at these tacky ad’s doesn't mean I'm going to hell, it’s more likely I'm going to hell because I'm a spiteful person that says horrible things about people.

...

 What became clear during this exercise however, was that ethics in journalism is about what's right and wrong, black and white, in good taste or bad. Trouble is, these can be confused with what is just plain tacky. Fear not! There is a whole bunch of riveting ethical theories and paradigms to make sure we don’t over step the line.

Deontology:

Deontology is the black and white approach, meaning, there is a definite wrong and a definite right, and if you follow the rules, priniciples and duties deontology sets out, you will no doubt be on the ethical right. Of course this ideal is embedded in society through the law. However, with all theories and rules, loopholes and questions can be posed. One such example, as mentioned in the lecture, was that, while some laws allow the ownership of guns, this may in fact mean that they are giving them the option to kill people. Following the rules, following the ethical compass is a choice.

Consequentialism:

Consequentialism essentially means, that as long as you get the outcome you want, it does not matter how you got there – the end justifies the means. Getting the ‘right’ outcome is the only objective. To extend on this, consequentialism concerns what is right, and what people think is right – this finding its foundations in what we have been told is right by society. With this comes the capacity for values to change, perhaps one day something bad, may be deemed ethical.

Virtue Ethics:

The easiest way to understand virtue ethics, for me at least, is to see it as what we, as people with learned attitudes, values and beliefs, see as good or moral behaviour. It is the characteristic trait of  good habits (or internal values) we hold as people- courage, temperance, or a sense of justice. Reasoning in virtue ethics is not based on external values (i.e. Neo- Aristotelianism) that are out of date in society.This, however, makes room for the sociopaths and sadists of this world, people lacking any sort of moral compass, to make ‘ethical’ decisions. These habits of behaviour form the “Golden mean” of behaviour. For example, one should be have a sense of justice, but justice is the mid way point between injustice (over-zealous and excessive law) , and the injustice of lawlessness.

...

Of course there are many codes that govern ethics, but in the words of Dr Redman, “We are drowning in ethics codes, what we aren’t drowning in, is people of good character.”

In my opinion, the black and white approach is too absolute, in the journalistic world there is bound to be grey areas, more so than any black or white. On the other end of the spectrum, we have journalists who will stop at nothing, step over everyone, loose dignity and respect for a breaking story. I will strive to refrain.  I feel as though, to be a good journalist, hell, a good person, we shouldn't live by these absolutes, and rather, rely on our character, our sense of person, to encompass 'goodness.' It’s all very simple really.

-Shannen