Media Ethics: Issues and Cases 8th Edition by Philip Patterson, Lee Wilkins

Exercise 4

Cases and Moral Systems
DENI ELLIOTT
University of South Florida-St. Petersburg
Case studies are wonderful vehicles for ethics discussions with strengths that include helping discussants
1. appreciate the complexity of ethical decision making;
2. understand the context within which difficult decisions are made;
3. track the consequences of choosing one action over another; and
4. learn both how and when to reconcile and to tolerate divergent points of view.
However, when case studies are misused, these strengths become weaknesses. Case studies are vehicles for an ethics discussion, not its ultimate destination. The purpose of an ethics discussion is to teach discussants how to "do ethics"-that is, to teach processes so that discussants can practice and improve their own critical decision-making abilities to reach a reasoned response to the issue at hand.
When the discussion stops short of this point, it is often because the destination has been fogged in by one or more myths of media case discussions:
Myth 1: Every opinion is equally valid.
Not true. The best opinion (conclusion) is the one that is best supported by judicious analysis of fact and theory and one that best addresses the morally relevant factors of the case (Gert 1988). An action has morally relevant factors if it is likely to cause some individual to suffer an evil that any rational person would wish to avoid (such as death, disability, pain, loss of freedom or pleasure), or if it is the kind of action that generally causes evil (such as deception, breaking promises, cheating, disobedience of law or neglect of duty).
Myth 2: Since we can't agree on an answer, there is no right answer.
In an ethics case, it may be that there are a number of acceptable answers. But there also will be many wrong answers-many approaches that the group can agree would be unacceptable. When discussants begin to despair of ever reaching any agreement on a right answer or answers, it is time to reflect on all of the agreement that exists within the group concerning the actions that would be out of bounds.
Myth 3: It hardly matters if you come up with the "ethical thing to do," since people ultimately act out of their own self-interest anyway.
Any institution supported by society-manufacturing firms or media corporations, medical centers, etc.-provides some service that merits that support. No matter what the service, practitioners or companies acting only in the short-term interest (i.e., to make money) will not last long. Both free-market pragmatism and ethics dictate that it makes little sense to ignore the expectations of consumers and of the society at large.
The guidelines below can serve as a map for an ethics discussion. They are helpful to have when working through unfamiliar terrain toward individual end points. They also can help you avoid the myths above. While discussing the case, check to see if these questions are being addressed:
If the actor followed through on the action, would he be allowing himself to be an exception to a rule that he thinks everyone else should follow? (If so, then the action is prudent, not moral.)