Edwards 1

Gina Edwards

Dr. Debatin

Media Ethics

April 29, 2009

Utilitarianism’s Value Today

The world’s most basic truths can often be extracted from the complex literary techniques

of significant literature. A perfect example of this is Sound of Thunder, a science fiction short

story by Ray Bradbury, which chronicles the experience of a man who travels back in time and

alters the entire course of history by committing a seemingly meaningless act—stepping on a

butterfly. This is obviously a fictional tale, but it demonstrates a universal truth about the impact

of choices made in daily life. Ethical decisions are a typical part of a journalist’s career, and he

or she must choose actions that uphold the responsibilities of the mass media while minimizing

harm to others. The ramifications of a single choice can have effects worldwide, and

utilitarianism aims to aid those grappling with this weighty reality as part of a profession.

History and Criticism

Most often credited with the foundations of utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham and later,

John Stuart Mill. Though they are often referenced together, each had differing viewpoints on

several aspects of the theory. Bentham was more simplistic in his vision of utility, focusing on

the primal human instincts of maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain. He promoted a system

called the “hedonic calculus” in which one could algebraically determine the right choice by

weighing potential positive and negative consequences of an action against one another. In The

Moral Philosophers, Richard Norman discusses Bentham’s insistence that “the only theory,
 Edwards 2

therefore, will be one which seeks to make such action as consistent and effective as possible”

(Norman 92). For this reason, many critics have deemed Bentham’s stance in relation to media

ethics far too simplistic for practical application.

However, Mill supplemented Bentham’s view by introducing the concept of a “general

happiness” that accounted for a choice’s impact upon the larger population and not exclusively

the individual journalist. By adding this altruistic slant to the theory, Mill’s interpretation of

utilitarianism was regarded as more thoroughly applicable than Bentham’s by critics. Whereas

Bentham was comfortable equating the pleasure of a game of pushpin to that of reading poetry,

Mill was more selective, articulating hierarchies of pleasures depending upon their intellectual

value. These kinds of opinions often garnered Mill an elitist reputation.

One of utilitarianism’s main critics, W. David Ross, is especially harsh in his analyses.

He disagrees with “the utilitarian claim that others are morally significant to us only when our

actions impact them pro or con” (Christians 120). Ross asserts that since utilitarianism focuses

on only one consideration in the ethical process, it diminishes other competing moral

imperatives. His evaluations indicate his low opinion of utilitarianism, stating that it is the theory

of “swine” and other base individuals. Various philosophers have also criticized this theory

because of its tendency to ignore other pertinent considerations like intent and the action itself

when making an ethical decision and focus only upon the potential consequences.

Strengths

However, the true depth of utilitarianism is supported by some media ethics scholars. For

instance, Lee Anne Peck addresses how Mill would view investigative journalism that took

liberties of invading privacy. She references an example of journalists uncovering a carpet

cleaning scam through the use of hidden cameras to dispel some misconceptions about Mill’s

theory. She explains how a student with a superficial understanding of utilitarianism might apply
 Edwards 3

the familiar verse “the greatest good for the greatest number” and conclude that the invasion was

permissible. Yet, Peck states that Mill would counsel the journalists to reevaluate the quality of

their reporting. He “would ask the journalists if there are other ways to maximize utility, to

produce ‘good’” (Peck 210). Thus, the common axiom that encapsulates utilitarianism’s “main

idea” often leads to misperceptions and the analysis of consequences goes much farther than

simply subtracting the harm from the good.

As the theory was criticized, Mill extensively added further layers such as rules of thumb

and general moral principles so that utilitarianism’s simplistic nature could cease to be a

vilification. Traditional act-utilitarians disagree with these kinds of accommodations to

deontological theories, claiming that it goes against utilitarianism at its core—which says that

each situation should be evaluated individually, absent of any kind of basic, overriding set of

moral guidelines. This difference is what separates the act and rule utilitarians. Therefore, the

application of Mill’s theory is more complex than many critics will give him credit for.

Furthermore, utilitarianism helps reporters balance the news. Elliott writes that “in Mill’s

theory, the individual must proactively seek out opinions divergent from his or her own” (Elliott

103). Attaining viewpoints different from any preconceived notions helps journalists to become

more well-rounded investigators and balanced reporters. Sometimes a journalist might espouse a

perspective similar to a confident scientist with a closely held hypothesis to research. They may

subconsciously (or deliberately) disregard information that does not correlate with their initial

perceptions and agendas. Sources from the “other” side of a story may weaken its punch much

like inconclusive data might tarnish an experiment’s results, but journalists need to be cognizant

of and include this data in order to better inform the public.

Expounding upon this idea, Mill’s writings indicate that many people are unaware of

their true beliefs because of “selective exposure,” a psychological tactic used to avoid
 Edwards 4

confronting one’s own viewpoints. He promoted an open mind and immersion in alternative

opinions in order to truly understand one’s own viewpoint. Therefore, these suggestions

discourage lazy journalism, a practice that is unfortunately common and seemingly unavoidable

in the near instantaneous news dissemination process of today. Because Mill was a proponent of

absolute freedom of expression, he “would love the World Wide Web with its conglomerate of

varied opinion” (Elliott 102). However, he would probably be leery of journalistic practices that

sacrificed the validity of a story on a tight deadline. According to Mill, these partially true or

scantily researched articles would likely cause more harm than good, as in the Sago mine disaster

of 2006 when the media horribly misinformed the public.

Weaknesses

Mill’s theory has various practical uses in today’s media driven world, but the efficiency

of online news may present barriers in its application process. This year, journalism students

across the country will graduate from college with a smattering of different ethical approaches

under their news gathering tool belts, never mind thousands of other pieces of pertinent

information. Digging through all of this knowledge, budding journalists will probably only

remember a small portion of Mill’s theory. Most likely it will be the phrase “the greatest good

for the greatest number,” and the approach will become utterly oversimplified and misapplied. It

could be argued that this faux pas is possible in the application of any ethical theory, but

utilitarianism is usually remembered by this pithy phrase, causing many to later wonder (and

likely just forget) what the complete idea entailed.

Peck further elucidates this point, stating that “professional journalists and journalism

students alike oftentimes read these brief explanations or hear the brief slogan, or motto, of ‘the

greatest good for the greatest number’ and believe, therefore, that using lies, coercion, and

manipulation is appropriate behavior in the gathering of information if the consequences will

 Edwards 5

lead to more benefits than harms” (Peck 205). Clearly, even practicing journalists may reduce

utilitarianism to its most basic form, altering decisions negatively. Some scholars argue that this

can be combated by being particularly thorough when teaching utilitarianism theory, but this

ideal is most often not achieved. The subsequent danger is that both students and professionals

will wrongfully justify decisions using Mill’s theory as the basis. This is an unfortunate by-

product of generalizing philosophers’ work into short slogans that undoubtedly “does nothing but

allow decision makers to reinforce their own uninformed opinions” (Elliott 101).

Another problem presented by Mill’s theory is the quandary of determining where the

“reach” of a decision ends. That is to say, how does one accurately calculate who will be affected

by a particular decision? Williams writes in A Short Introduction to Ethics that this issue is one

of many challenges aimed at utilitarian theory. Given enough thought and analysis, any decision

could potentially have ramifications across many spheres, which leaves the question, “must we

consider the entire world as ‘the whole’ every time we make a moral judgment?” (Williams 42).

Using this approach, journalists are asked to become fortune tellers, predicting not only the

outcome of a particular choice, but who it will affect, how far the consequences will spread and

if that effect will be positive or negative. These kinds of calculations can require a great deal of

time and guesswork, which are both things that journalists on a deadline cannot permit.

More troubling than the aforementioned problem, utilitarianism (particularly Bentham’s

quantitative approach) tends to espouse such an empirical and scientific attitude that it deters

people from utilizing basic human decency and compassion. Though the goal of ethical theories

is to help people make good decisions without that “gut feeling,” the emotional aspect in

utilitarianism is so far removed that human lives could be at stake. Williams uses the example of

the Ford Motor Company marketing the Pinto in the seventies, though it was aware that during

rear-end collisions the gas tank was likely to catch fire. Ford was accused of using reasoning
 Edwards 6

inspired by utilitarianism because the cost of redesigning the car would have cost more than

compensating victims. Applying Mill’s theory, one must inevitably end up assigning some kind

of quantitative or qualitative measurement to the consequences. But when human lives are at

stake, is it ethically sound to compare currency to the cost of losing a human life?

Let us attempt to practically apply utilitarianism theory to the case occurring near 9/11

that dealt with the ethical implications of running a picture of a near-identifiable man plunging to

his death from one of the World Trade Center towers. After the photo ran in the New York Times

and newspapers across the nation, readers were furious. September 12th brought the Times “calls

from outraged readers who felt that this photo in particular was sensationalistic and exploited a

man at the moment just before his death” (qtd. in Patterson & Wilkins 40). Likely, Richard

Drew, the photographer who shot the photograph, and the newspaper editors throughout the

country considered how the general public would react to the image. For the Times, a New York

newspaper, the decision was even more important because of its proximity to the disaster.

Overall, the editors who chose to run the picture at its size and place in the newspaper would

have had to analyze if the negative reactions to the image would outweigh the public’s need to

know about the tragedy. Especially in a state of crisis like September 11th, it would be quite

difficult to fully comprehend the “reach” that the image would have, along with any other

accompanying emotional factors, making Mill’s theory a difficult one to correctly apply.

Personal Analysis and Conclusion

Today’s journalists must be smarter, faster, and more dedicated than ever before. The

entire face of mass media is being altered by the plastic surgeon of technology, and journalists

facing ethical dilemmas must be able to act fast, and act accordingly. Utilitarianism has its

practical benefits but is not without its flaws. While it promotes key ideas like free expression,

balanced investigation and thorough reporting, the theory falls flat when it comes to practical
 Edwards 7

application. Though Mill made attempts to supplement the basic nature of utilitarianism with

ideals of happiness and pleasure, it lacks a proper line of thinking to use when evaluating

decisions. Bok’s model and the Potter Box provide literal step-by-step instructions to follow, but

journalists using Mill’s theory will struggle with predicting consequences and trying to pinpoint

how and whom their decisions will affect. Although consequences are certainly an important

thing to consider when making a decision, utilitarianism may narrow the scope of consideration

too far and cause unfortunate consequences as a circumstance.

Like stepping on a butterfly, the actions in the daily life of a journalist may appear

insignificant and unworthy of the time it takes to properly apply an ethical approach. However,

history shows us that when it comes to telling the world the truth, journalists have made their fair

share of ethical mistakes. Utilitarianism still stands as one of the ways in which mass media

workers can attempt to gather and disseminate the news in the best and most respectable way

possible, but may be outstripped by more comprehensive processes. And after the choice is

made, the dominoes fall.

 Edwards 8

Works Cited

Christians, Clifford G. "Utilitarianism in Media Ethics and Its Discontents." Journal of Mass

Media Ethics 22.2/3 (June 2007): 113-131. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Alden

Library, Athens, Ohio. 28 Apr. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25264848&site=ehost-live>.

Elliott, Deni. "Getting Mill Right." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22.2/3 (June 2007): 100-

112. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio. 28 Apr.

2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25264844&s ite=ehost-live>.

Norman, Richard. The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction to Ethics. 2nd ed. New York:

Oxford University Press Inc., 1998.

Patterson, Philip and Lee Wilkins. Media Ethics Issues and Cases. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill,

2008.

Peck, Lee Anne. "A "Fool Satisfied"? Journalists and Mill's Principle of Utility." Journalism

& Mass Communication Educator 61.2 (Summer2006 2006): 205-213. Academic Search

Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio. 28 Apr. 2009

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22251671&s

ite=ehost-live>.

Williams, Gerald J. A Short Introduction to Ethics. New York: University Press of

America, Inc., 1999.