Qn.“Deontology is rigid, uncaring and not applicable to today’s society and the

issues we face in digital media”. Using at least one other ethical framework we have

covered, discuss this statement.

“Deontology is rigid, uncaring and not applicable to today’s society and the issues we face in

digital media”. This statement is a sweeping statement that is not applicable to all issues we

face. We sometimes apply consequentialism to issues, but we must understand that

consequences are relative, and dependence on it cannot be total basis of human society. While

it may be ineffective in modern society if a rigid moral doctrine is applied without any relative

bearings to the issue, we must know the benefits of it before judgement on the issues and to

view each issues relative to factors surrounding it, both in society and in digital media. This

essay will explore certain issues in today’s society like capital punishment and online journalism

and the respective stances that both ethical frameworks would take.

This essay provides the following definition on Deontology: its religious roots, that there are

specific commandments and laws in religious documents defining what is right and wrong, or

the more modern day approach, paraphrasing Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, that we

service the community by behaving properly, that one’s action could always hold as a principle

establishing universal law (Ess 2009). Utilitarianism is a different take on ethics, to promote the

greatest good for the greatest number (Beauchamp & Childress 2001) or inflicting the least

harm to the least amount of people. (Kanniyakonil 2007), to take action based on the

consequences rather than to duty or obligation of the individual. The are not necessary

opposites, just different frameworks: Deontologists would say theft is wrong and is unpleasant

for the victims. Utilitarianism would say the consequences of punishment by law, retaliation and

vengeance outweigh the utility gained from theft of material goods.

Capital Punishment, referred as the death penalty, according to Thomas Long in his article,

argues that it is cruel and unusual, and unconstitutional because the pain and suffering cannot

be justified by its effectiveness as a deterrent, and therefore irrational. (Gerstein 1974)

However, countries all over the world still perform it, some of them arguing that it is completely

justified as a suitable punishment for heinous acts of violence with malicious intent. It is

interesting to note that until the mid-twentieth century the death penalty is imposed for crimes

beside murder, including rape, kidnapping and treason. (Bedau, Cassell, Pojman 2004). A

realistic view would be that as we grow to believe that society becomes more refined and

civilized, the death sentence is perceived as barbaric. (Kumari 2007)

Many religion-based Deontologists would argue from the point of the scarcity of life, and modern

Deontologists, the right to live, and that deterrence is not effective and morally flawed.

Deontologists would maintain that the ending of life by man's hand is unpleasant and wrong, the

Church forbids public authorities from inflicting the death penalty as punishment, and traditional

doctrine dictate it be better to not practice capital punishment. (Owens, Carlson, Dulles, Elshtain

2004). They would also argue of the rights to live as a human being, as cited in the Charter of

Fundamental Rights in the European Union, Article 2: which proclaims that everyone has the

right to life and none be condemned to execution. (Perry 2007) Moreover, the punishment must

be known to the potential criminals to be a deterrent, else there would be no fear of being

punished and hence no deterrent. (Odhiambo 2009) If the public believes if the criminal is

punished but in truth is secretly let free and given a second chance, would it still be a deterrent?

(Odhiambo 2009) The fact is that the public knowing of the punishment would produce a

deterrent effect, and the act of punishing the guilty is irrelevant.

From a Utilitarian stance the death penalty is a powerful deterrent. Deterrence itself found out to

be highly correlated with the population support for the death penalty, in a 1974 survey

conducted on California Bay Area residents. (Bedau 1998) Robertson further argues that there

is substantial evidence that is a deterrent: a study by the University of North Carolina show that

every murder deters on average 18 murders. After most executions there is a notable decrease

of homicides. However, skeptics have questioned these arguments, that far too many variables

like poverty levels, population, race, culture and urbanization to trust these evidences.

(Robertson 2002) If every murder is resulted in cosmic retribution in the form of lightning, and

that they all go punished in such manner, the cosmic retribution would serve as a deterrent.

(Bedau, Cassell 2004). Such logic is questionable: As Amnesty International pointed out, that as

long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be

eliminated, thus the abolition of the death penalty is to prevent innocents from getting executed.

Retribution from human justice is imperfect, and may sometimes execute an innocent.

Online Journalism is exploding, with the ever growing number of “blogs” and online publications,

journalists both amateurs and professionals can publish about news, and with that their

thoughts and views. Such blogs are free or have less of the censorship of editors and the

cynicism which sometimes come from profit-seeking news organization. More people are getting

their news from the internet (http :// www . economist . com / node /13642689? story _ id =13642689 ),

the growing distrust the public press, (http :// www . people - press . org /2009/09/13/ press - accuracy -

rating - hits - two - decade - low / ) two-thirds of surveyed political-interested internet users find online

newspaper and politically-orientated websites as somewhat credible. (Cassidy 2007) These

online “journalists” are offering first hand accounts, in depth investigation usually ignored by

mainstream media, and viewpoints to the public, and are changing how journalism works.

(Rettberg 2008) The transparency of news between bloggers and online publication further

enhances credibility and trustworthiness. (Fortner, Fackler 2010) Also it is evident, according to

Technorati, that most bloggers are transparent about their motives and processes; public with

their biases and subjective approaches, not constrained to norms of objectivity of any given

subject. (Friend, Singer 2007)

Deontologists would argue that moral ethics dictate that a blogger publish the truth and attempt

to minimize harmful, seditious opinions. However to constrain personal opinion from a blog

article is paradoxical to the nature and popular purpose of blogging. Advantages from a perfect

journalistic code of conduct is that news is reported objectively, truthfully, and free of inciting

opinions. Also with no editorial or financial obligation, there is a freedom to report or even

correct news with cold hard facts and citations. (Blood 2002) However, one may feel morally

obligated to report news so truthfully it is distasteful or could harm the community more than

doing good. The general lack of editorial procedures for accommodating new amateur sources

(Mortensen 2011), like the death of Neda Agha Soltan, or the jumpers falling from the World

Trade Center on 9/11,, cast light on the ethical dilemma of publishing a video or photo of the last

moments of a human being. The argument would be that it is journalistic duty to keep the public

informed of the gravity of the situation, but at what cost, utilitarians may argue. We are unable to

determine the utility, the actual consequences of publishing such media to the public and loved

ones. While it may inform, it commits moral exclusion, to not accommodate the rights of people

related or involved. (Larson 2010)

Consequentialists would argue that blogs are personal, filled with opinions and expression; like

how one may support a political candidate, party, or cause. Their opinions and feedback is

invaluable to the intellectual growth of society, though some may unconsciously publish

propaganda, already indoctrinated by belief, to sway public opinions on topics like foreign talent

in Singapore, or the death penalty, and deducting hypothetical benefits to a nation. In relation

again to the ethics of publishing content like Soltan’s death, the Western media’s eager use of

such videos for both pure, visceral information and headline-grabbing potential; turning her into

a democratic hero (Drushel, German 2011) than focusing on the tragedy of death, that though

this happened during demonstrations in Iran, it is actually unrelated (Stelder 2011) and that she

is found to be apolitical and not involved in the demonstration, just an innocent bystander killed.

However this doesn’t stop blogs and publications to mourn and turn her into a symbol of Iranian

freedom, when she wasn’t involved in the first place.

No two sides would be absolutely correct, neither deontology or utilitarianism provides a perfect

framework. Deontology is bounded by old laws and rules that sometimes cannot be applied to

modern day issues. Neither is utilitarianism, which is actually colder and can be more uncaring

than deontology. In regards of the Death Penalty, we cannot ignore the figures that there are

less murders from the effect of deterrence. Correlating to the harsh penalty Singapore imposes

on drug trafficking, that is well connected in the region and with bank secrecy laws make it

attractive for drug traffickers to launder money (Ibp USA 2007), there is much less drug

trafficking going in and out of our borders from the powerful deterrent Singapore law imposes.

The absence of evidence and few cases of drugs abuse in Singapore is evidence in itself.

However, we cannot devalue the power of expression in blogs. While there is a need to follow a

code of conduct, amateur reporting result in erroneous news and strong opinions. The blatant

lack of impartiality is a benefit that would draw users into a discussion, and with the power to

moderate whose opinions is better founded or more important, (Fortner, Fackler 2010) Blogs

greatest strength in its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice, is also its greatest

weakness. (Blood 2002) There is a risk that people can use blogs as online soapboxes as a

way and means of swaying public opinion, evoking strong emotions upon the reader and turn

discussions into internet arguments. Online journalists should uphold truth and credibility first,

opinions second, rather than on sensationalism and emotional language, even if its against the

ethos of blogging, adhering to a code of blogging ethics. (Fortner, Fackler 2010) Else all news

online should be taken with a pinch of salt if there is no truth or credible information.

Deontology is still a necessary framework and basis of our society and culture, which then

Utilitarianism can build itself upon it. Code of laws is based in deontology, and should be

regarded as a beneficial source of wisdom in certain issues, but we need to also understand

consequentialism have its benefits that may be better than solutions provided by deontology.

Deontology resists change especially on new viewpoints, but once in a while, Utilitarianism

would provide a better solution to social problems like crime and expression, but this is still

subjective and have to be analysed carefully to account any form of consequence.

Bibliography:

Amnesty International (April 2000) The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers Retrieved June

14th 2012 from http :// www . amnesty . org / ar / library / asset / ACT 50/001/2000/ es /3 c 01 c 217- dfd 1-

11 dd -8 e 17-69926 d 493233/ act 500012000 en . pdf

Alan Marzilli (2008) Capital Punishment. New York: Infobase Publishing

Bruce E. Drushel, Kathleen German (2011). The Ethics of Emerging Media. New York:

Continuum International

Cassidy, W. P. (2007). Online news credibility: An examination of the perceptions of newspaper

journalists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), article 7.

Cecilia Friend, Jane B. Singer (2007).Online Journalism Ethics: Traditions and Transitions. New

York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Charles Ess (2009). Digital Media Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Charles U. Larson (2010) Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility. Boston: Wadsworth

Diane P. Robertson (2002) Tears from Heaven; Voices from Hell: The Pros and Cons of the

Death Penalty. Lincoln, Writers Club Press

Dr. A. Krishna Kumari (July 2007). Capital Punishment: The Never Ending Debte (sic).

Retrieved June 13th 2012 from http :// works . bepress . com / cgi / viewcontent . cgi ?

article =1002& context = krishnaareti

Erik C. Owens, John David Carlson, Eric P. Elshtain et al (2004) Religion and the Death

Penalty: A Call for Reckoning. Michigan, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

F. Ochieng’-Odhiambo (2009) Foundations of Ethics. Nairobi: University of Nairobi Press

Hugo Adam Bedau (1998) The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies

Ibp USA (2009) Singapore Industrial and Business Directory. Washington, DC, International

Business Publications

Mette Mortensen (2011). Global Media and Communication April 2011 vol. 7 no. 1 4-16

Mikki Stelder (April 2011). The Death of Neda Agha-Soltan: Images, Mourning, Politics

Retrieved June 13th 2012, from http :// change . iranpy . net / w / item /227

Perry, Michael J. (2007). Towards a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law, Courts. New York,

Cambridge University Press

Pew Research Center (September 13 2009). Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low.

Retrieved June 12th 2012, from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

http :// www . people - press . org /2009/09/13/ press - accuracy - rating - hits - two - decade - low /

Rebecca Blood (2002). The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice On Creating and Maintaining

Your Blog. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing

Robert S. Fortner, P. Mark Fackler (2010). The Handbook of Global Communication and Media

Ethics

Robert S. Gerstein (1974). Ethics Vol. 85 No. 1 pp 75-79. Chicago, The University of Chicago

Press

Scaria Kanniyakonil (2007). The Fundamentals of Bioethics: Legal Perspectives and Ethical

Approaches. Kerala: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India.

Skeptics (March 16 2011) Is the Death Penalty an effective deterrent? Retrieved June 13th

2012 from http :// skeptics . stackexchange . com / questions /907/ is - the - death - penalty - an - effective -

deterrent

The Economist (May 14th 2009). Tossed by a Gale. Retrieved June 13th 2012, from

http :// www . economist . com / node /13642689? story _ id =13642689

The Journal of Criminal Laws & Criminology (2009) DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE

RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING

CRIMINOLOGISTS Retrieved June 14th 2012 from

http :// www . deathpenaltyinfo . org / files / DeterrenceStudy 2009. pdf

Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York:

Oxford University Press, Inc.

1. Excellent essay – well written and clear. Excellent use of resources and citations. My

only reservation is that you spent too much time (800 words) discussing deontology and

utilitarianism in a more theoretical context, and should probably have brought in digital

media / media just a little bit earlier. However, that does not detract from what is a very

good piece of work. Well done.