What makes journalism an interesting area for ethics is the impact that the mass media can have on the lives of people and the world; the investigations, the accounts, what is considered to be in the public interest all play a part. Broadcasting of information that aims to serve society by keeping them knowledgeable can also backfire — at what point does it become too much and lead to intrusion or even manipulation?

There’s a number of guides and expectations for newsrooms such as fairness and accuracy. Ethical journalism should also involve respect for people’s rights, such as preventing discrimination, opportunities for rights to reply and even corrections. Journalism therefore requires an approach that not only considers the way it reflects society but how it can change perception of society and the people and stakeholders within it.

We also have to consider how important journalism is to society, and while it has expectations placed upon it, how the public at large should encourage its maintenance and freedom.

Within commercial endeavours, application of ethical behaviours not only includes how businesses interact with employees and with each other, but also the impact they can have upon society and environments around them.

Elements within the workplace such as safe working locations and occupational health and safety help maintain ethical behaviour for the average corporation; with the rise of unions and human resource groups, problems such as bullying, what constitutes fair recruitment practices and how promotions happen, have come under scrutiny. It’s also important to analyse how businesses not only interact with other businesses, but also with governments and ecosystems, in an considerate manner.

The different sizes of businesses, whether they are for-profit or charity, doesn’t make them exempt from guidelines and expectations. Combinations of Kantian and utilitarian, social contracts and economical theory all influenced guidelines for workplace treatment of its employees and others.

Recently turned into a television show, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is both a gripping historical account of medical development and the resulting ethical issues, and a family seeking justice.

After being diagnosed with cancer in 1951, Henrietta Lacks was treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, where samples of her tumour and tissue were given to researchers attempting to create an immortal human cell line. However, this was not told to either the patient or her family, leading to the cells being used in medical experiments and innovation, with the name HeLa used as the only identifier of where the cells originally came from.

Issues of race, class and education, medical ethics and social discrimination are part of the investigation that the author Rebecca Skloot delves into when finding out about the history of the cells — and a great deal of the book focuses on scientific innovation and personhood. While Henrietta Lacks’ story is the primary focus, hers is not the only example of testing and use of human subjects without permission or without concern for the rights of the participants.

How do we define the point when something is a person — has the rights of a person, has the opportunities or even the right to life?

This is an ongoing issue in ethics, whether there are creatures that are valued, to what extent and by who — and whether the judgements matter more in one case than another. If a case is made that there’s a requirement to be capable of certain behaviours or actions, what happens if you never had, or lose some, or even all of those opportunities — or if you take the approach that just by being a human being you are a person, what makes us able to decide in what instances we can acceptably take a life in situations such as war or saving the life of one over another?

These kinds of arguments also revolve around certain periods of life where it is argued that a human being becomes a person — such as at the moment of conception, at a certain point of development, what happens when life is ending, and so on.

Because of the differing opinions on the matter, it’s more often down to societal norms and community agreements on what makes the difference between a human being with the rights of a person and one that is limited or devoid of them altogether — and even that can greatly differ with time and place.

Capital punishment or the death penalty, is a severe penalty for a crime, meted for cases such as murder or sedition, in some countries. Traditionally, punishment’s aim is to bring those who have committed crimes to understand and repent for their actions or omissions, and promote reform. 

The extreme of capital punishment, while it may have the result of repentance, does not allow for a future that can demonstrate reform — the result may be more of a warning for those who might consider acting the same as the convicted.

The ethical ramifications of capital punishment — whether it is an effective deterrent, if people who are innocent of the crimes they are accused, or even if the act of killing as a part of the penalty is ethical in itself is debatable. 

There’s numerous accounts of how it can be used as a method of removing dissident voices, benefit corrupt societies and silence a chance of being proved innocent in the future (if they were allowed to otherwise live).

For Patreon subscribers, there’s further revision questions by heading towww.patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

1. Can we ever have universal duties? Why/why not?

2. Can virtue ethics be compatible with modern society? Why / why not?

3. Animal ethics is human ethics. Discuss.

4. Reasons and desires are indistinguishable when it comes to ethical behaviour. Discuss.

Today’s episode is the second revision of the topics on resources involving ethics — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com.

Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

“…when it comes to ethics we are in the domain of preference and choice. And here, reason is silent.”

Another in the “short introduction” series, this is not too dissimilar to another one of Simon Blackburn’s books called “Being Good: A Short Introduction To Ethics”. 

Ethics: A Very Short Introduction is an overall summary of the scope of ethics, it does a good job of looking at what is a range of ideas and concepts, including some of the greater challenges involving defining person-hood and what constitutes an ethical ending of life. 

While the book’s structure is more discursive than essay-writing, it covers the main branches of ethical philosophy, with an interesting start with what he considers threats to ethics such as evolutionary theory, determinism, egoism and the death of god. The book also contains a number of artistic, cartoon and historical images that sometimes seem a little disjointed with the topic being discussed, but could be used as sources for discussing ethical issues.

Overall, Blackburn’s book covers the problems that can be faced with being ethical in everyday life and how justice and rights influence ethical behaviour. The connection with progress and knowledge is covered in the latter part of the book, with the historical aspects leading to why be ethical in the first place.

It is, however, a short introduction, and not as comprehensive as it could be — but a different kind of investigation of the topic that is very thought provoking.

Further Resources:

Official Website

Based on the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, the idea of using virtues to guide our ethical behaviour depends on living well by cultivating virtues — such as justice, courage, temperance, and prudence. In encouraging a virtuous life, it will lead to eudaimonia or flourishing, being the best that one can be for yourself and for others.

According to virtue theorists, virtues are not just abstract concepts but actual things that should be seen in houw you feel and behave, a trend that you develop in response to situations. It’s a concious approach to the judgements you’ll make when faced with injustice, with unfair decisions, with scary challenges and the like. 

A person who is demonstrating the most important virtue, prudence, would also make sure that they are achiveing a balance in the virtues that they demonstrate — they are neither too generous with their gifts or too stingy. They are not blind to injustice, but neither are they afraid to support just punishments when they are needed and so on. However, one of the great challenges of using the virtues as an ethical guide is that they can be redefined as virtues when in fact they are vices, and vice versa.

A film from 1997 and yet still a popular movie that you can find on Netflix, Gattaca addresses key moral, ethical and scientific issues associated with genetic manipulation and genetic selection. This story investigates the struggle of a young man who is born into an era where the circumstances of an individual’s birth has reached the point of discrimination even before they are conceived, with the preference being for manipulated genes rather than natural selection. It’s a world where the imperfect are segregated, where a twelve-fingered prodigy is born to play the piano, and only the very best get to leave it for other worlds.

In order for Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) to achieve his dreams of becoming an astronaut, he purchases the identity of a man named Jerome (Jude Law), who has genes modified and accepted by society — but was paralysed in an accident. By working in a space training centre, Vincent seems likely to be picked for a mission to Saturn, and is able to manipulate the regular checks and scans by using the blood and skin cells of Jerome. However, all it takes is for a dropped eyelash to risk his entire career — and possibly even his life.

In terms of big questions, Gattaca investigates the ramifications of gene selection to its extreme, with personal identity, opportunities and even relationships investigated through a dramatic-thriller escape from an unfair society. As with many science fiction films, it depicts a dystopian future with a thought-provoking what-if question at its heart.