What Makes Right Acts Right and Wrong Acts Wrong - Essay Example

What Makes Right Acts Right and Wrong Acts Wrong? Introduction Mug shots have been a of discussion, regarding their appropriateness or inappropriateness in being published by sites that require payment to pull them down. While the legal argument is that mug shots are public documents that are within the public domain, and that the mug shot sites does no wrong in republishing them, the ethical question that comes to the fore is whether asking for payment to remove the mug shot of an individual from a mug shot site is right or wrong (Segal, n.p.). This antagonism emanates from the fact that the owners of such sites hold the opinion that they are just displaying public documents, which can in turn make the public make informed choices while dealing with the individuals in question (Segal, n.p.). However, the affected individuals, whose mug shots appears on such sites are feeling offended, considering that some of them could not have committed any wrong, and they were cleared by the authorities of any wrongdoing. Therefore, the consistent display of their mug shots is tantamount to defamation, considering that they may not have been guilty of an offence, and even for those who could have been guilty, they may have transformed their lives. This is issue raises a fundamental ethical question of right or wrong, since the display of the mug shots is benefiting some individuals, such as the owners of the mug shot sites, the search engines and the partnering financial service companies, while causing grave harm to the individuals whose photographs are being displayed (Segal, n.p.). The utilitarian approach to answering “what makes right acts right and wrong acts wrong” According to the utilitarian approach, the right action is that which, amongst the entire available alternatives, is most likely to maximize the overall utility, in the form of happiness and absence of suffering (Jack, 437).The main ethical issue the article raises is whether stopping the publication of the mug shots on the mug shot sites would be right or wrong. The other ethical dilemma raised by the article is whether stopping the publication of the mug shots would be beneficial or detrimental to the public. Therefore, in regard to the case above, the utilitarian approach will consider that; since publishing mug shots of individuals who may have previously been booked by the authorities serves to deny such individuals the maximum overall utility; by denying them happiness and causing them dissatisfaction, then, it is wrong to publish the mug shots in the sites. However, this position may not be agreeable to all the utilitarian advocates, since by failing to publish such mug shots on the mug shot sites, some individuals are also being denied maximum utility, happiness and satisfaction, which they could derive from publishing the mug shots. Therefore, the utilitarians will disagree on the issue of which alternative between publishing and removing mug shots from the sites creates more happiness and satisfaction (Hare, 117). For example, the owners of the mug shot sites will be denied happiness and satisfaction, since they will not get the money they obtain from individuals seeking to have their mug shots removed. This will in turn cause them dissatisfaction and unhappiness. However, considering that the number of the owners of the mug shot sites stands at around 80, while there are over 1.6 million mug shots printed in the sites, it is apparent that much harm is caused to the individuals whose mug shots are published, thus making the option of stopping the publication of the mug shots the right alternative, amongst the rest. The deontological approach to answering “what makes right acts right and wrong acts wrong” The deontological approach to what is right or wrong is guided by the principle that; an action could be right or morally correct, even though there are still other alternatives that produces overall better consequences (Singer, 232). Therefore, according to the deontological approach, an action should not be judged by the overall consequences, but by the virtue of being in line with the existing rules, at the expense of the desirable consequences that might be obtained. The main ethical issues the article raises is whether the publication of the mug shots on the mug shot sites is right or wrong. The other ethical dilemma raised by the article is whether one should take the action that protects the individuals booked by the authorities, or the one that grants the public information regarding such individuals. Thus in the case above, the deontological approach would be that; the act of publishing the mug shots of individuals who have been previously booked by the authorities is wrong, since it violates the existing rules that require individuals not be subjected to defamation or to occurrences that degrades their status and self-esteem (Hare, 122). However, there are other deontologists, who will dispute this position, by holding that the failure to publish the mug shots may prevent the individuals in question against defamation and from being demoralized, because it would go against the rule treating humanity as an end by itself, rather than as a means (Singer, 236). This is because, treating humanity as an end would mean that it is beneficial to inform the public regarding the status of the individuals who have been booked by the authorities, for the overall good of the public. Nevertheless, the deontologists will contend with adhering to the rule of not demoralizing and defaming the individuals, since it is not just beneficial to individuals booked, but also compliant to the rules, since in doing this, the action will amount to treating humanity as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end, as would be the case of justifying the publication of the mug shots. Ross’s prima facie duties answer to “what makes right acts right and wrong acts wrong” Ross’s prima facie duties hold the view that humans have an intuitive knowledge that enables them to differentiate the right from the wrong, even without applying a set of rules (Jack, 242). Thus according to the Ross’s prima facie duties approach, it is the circumstances and the perceptions that elicit the intuition, which then determines the right action that should be taken under the circumstances. In this case, the prima facie duty will entail looking at the circumstances at hand from only a single perspective, and thus fulfilling ones duty, based on that perspective (Jack, 243). The main ethical issues the article raises, is whether stopping the publication of the mug shots on the mug shot sites would be right or wrong. The other ethical dilemma raised by the article is whether stopping the publication of the mug shots on the sites would be beneficial or detrimental for the public. In the case above, considering the perception that demoralizing others and defaming them is not right, the prima facie duty is to take an action that would ensure that the individuals are neither defamed nor demoralized. This can only occur through stopping the publication of the mug shots of the individuals who have previously been booked by the authorities. However, the individuals taking the Ross’s prima facie duties approach will disagree on the issue of the right perspective in the circumstances presented in the case. While some will be of an opinion that enhancing the public knowledge through publishing the mug shots is the right perspective, the others will argue that preventing the defamation and demoralization of the individuals previously booked by the law is the right perspective. Nevertheless, the conflicting issues will be resolved through taking the perspective that promotes both desirable consequences and fulfils the intuitive knowledge (Sher, 288). Conclusions about the ethical issues the article raises There are two fundamental ethical issues that are raised by the article. First, the article raises an ethical issue of whether stopping the publication of the mug shots on the mug shot sites would be right or wrong. Secondly, it raises the ethical issue of whether the public should benefit from the published information, through raising a question as to whether stopping the publication of the mug shots on the mug shot sites would be beneficial or detrimental for the public. The idea that is most helpful in reaching a credible conclusion is the idea of prima facie duty, which allows an individual to consider both the perception and circumstances of the issue, and then judge the rightness or wrongness of the situation, based on that. The least helpful idea however, is the concept of deontological approach, because it is not specific on the exact universal rules that should be applied as the moral absoluteness for all situations, in arriving at a decision, where a situation poses some ethical dilemma. Works Cited Hare, R. M. “The Argument from Received Opinion,” in Essays on Philosophical Method, R. M. Hare (ed.), London: Macmillan, 1971. 117–135. Print. Jack, H. H. “Utilitarianism and Ross's Theory of Prima Facie Duties,” Dialogue, 10 (1971): 437–457. Segal, David. “Mugged by a Mug Shot Online”. The New York Times, October 5, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a-mug-shot-online.html Sher, George. Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory. Routeledge, 2012. 230-297. Print. Singer, Peter. “Ethics and Intuitions,” The Journal of Ethics, 9 (2005): 331–352. Read More