Investigating Ethical Approaches to Dilemmas in the Twenty-First Century

 

Investigating Ethical Approaches to Dilemmas in the Twenty-First Century

In the realm of journalism, ethical dilemmas often arise when deciding what information to disclose and when to disclose it. A particularly challenging scenario is when sensitive information, such as accusations of misconduct by a public figure, surfaces during a critical time, such as an election. In such cases, journalists must navigate the principles of virtue ethics, duty ethics, and utilitarian ethics to make informed decisions.

Thesis Statement

In the context of twenty-first-century ethical dilemmas like the one presented, the most appropriate approach would be utilitarian ethics, as advocated by John Stuart Mill. This approach prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, considering the overall consequences of actions. While virtue ethics and duty ethics have their merits, utilitarian ethics offers a more pragmatic and comprehensive framework for addressing complex ethical dilemmas in contemporary society.

Utilitarian Ethics – John Stuart Mill

Utilitarian ethics, as proposed by John Stuart Mill, focuses on maximizing happiness and well-being for the majority. In the case of withholding the article about the accusation of sexual assault against Ron Smith until after the election, a utilitarian perspective would consider the potential consequences. Publishing the article before the election could influence voters’ decisions based on incomplete information, potentially impacting the election outcome and future policies.

Utilitarian ethics in the twenty-first century aligns with the need for transparency and accountability in public discourse. By prioritizing the overall welfare of society and considering the long-term implications of journalistic decisions, utilitarianism provides a forward-thinking approach to ethical dilemmas.

Critique of Virtue Ethics and Duty Ethics

While virtue ethics, as advocated by Aristotle, emphasizes moral character and virtues, it may not offer clear guidance in situations where conflicting virtues are at play. In the case of the journalist’s dilemma, virtues like truthfulness and justice may conflict with virtues like prudence and fairness. Without a clear hierarchy of virtues, virtue ethics may lead to subjective interpretations and indecision.

On the other hand, duty ethics, as proposed by Immanuel Kant, prioritizes moral obligations and universal principles. However, in complex scenarios where duties may conflict or result in harm to individuals, rigid adherence to duty ethics can be impractical. Kant’s categorical imperative may not provide nuanced guidance when balancing competing interests in a rapidly changing society.

Conclusion

In navigating ethical dilemmas like the one presented in journalism today, utilitarian ethics offers a balanced and pragmatic approach that considers the broader impact of decisions. By weighing the consequences of actions on society as a whole, journalists can uphold ethical standards while promoting the common good. While virtue ethics and duty ethics have their strengths, utilitarian ethics provides a relevant and applicable framework for addressing complex ethical challenges in the twenty-first century.