Blog Post 10

I can directly relate to this chapters observation on moral development because of my role as an older sister. I have watched my younger brother who is 4 years younger than myself, progress through almost all of Piaget’s moral development stages. It is extremely interesting to read through these as an accepted norm and I’m sure growing up it would’ve been helpful to know (or at least would’ve prevented some pretty silly sibling fights). I think the biggest takeaway from Piaget’s stages was the third stage of development, that of understanding the reasoning behind rules and therefore feeling better in justifying breaking them. This is a question that I think defines ethics for me. The quiz at the beginning of the semester placed me as a hard realist, so I am in large support of fully accepting this stage of development. A universal moral code seems absurd to me, it is the reasoning that one acquires at this stage of development that I think defines one as ethical vs. unethical.

This ties in a bit with Kohlberg’s theories as well. His sixth stage of so-called ‘universal ethical principles’ seems impossible, but perhaps that’s because I probably operate on a more conventional moral basis. I fully support his concept of social systems as a moral incentive. When I think of this I think of my mother. She is a moral person by most standards but she would constantly stress certain things to my brother and I because they were “the right thing to do”. The right thing to do though was never what immediately struck my brother and I to do naturally. It was something we were supposed to do based off of widely accepted social systems and norms. I think this level of ethical behavior is questionable but understandable. Without anyone being able to be truly, purely ethical (save for the few handfuls of people Kohlberg brought up) it makes sense that ethics should be measured on a scale that defines what modern day ethical behavior is motivated by.

I was a much bigger fan of Gilligan’s notions of moral development. The idea of fusing two different moral languages fits the way in which I approach ethical decision making a lot better. While I may not always behave or act morally, I would consider myself as completing moral development in Gilligan’s model.

After completing the chapter I was left with one final thought: I definitely don’t think I would make a good journalist. I would like to think that I am generally ethical but I certainly don’t hold myself to the moral standards it appears the average journalist does. I think I’ll leave that to the professionals!

Blog Post 9

I was surprised to read a chapter in the book based off of art and ethics. In all things media, art has always struck me as being the last frontier for freedom of speech. Art to me has always been strictly unapologetic and deeply personal. I don’t agree with Tolstoy’s point at all, sure art can be esoteric but that doesn’t degrade its value. I actually think the opposite. When art is misunderstood by its audience, I think that connotes a complexity and depth by the artist. Good art isn’t simply taken at face value and understood, I feel good art invokes thought and questioning.

This also goes along with the concept of censorship. Censoring art over ethical concerns involving the public being offended seems like a feckless and counter intuitive practice. Art is expression and personal expression rarely follows the rules and preferences of others, nor should it. I’ve always been a strong opponent of censorship in general but with art it seems especially egregious. In the context of ethics I think censorship is babying the public. If a painting or a movie has cuss words or nudity, I don’t see that as inherently harmful to others. It benefit’s others because it breeds culture and appreciation of expression. Censorship seems unethical. It doesn’t directly benefit anyone and harms those that are being censored. As an artist having someone tell you that your work cannot be executed according to your vision is like neutering their self expression and inherently harmful to them.

The author’s discussion over the mix of art and journalism in documentaries was very intriguing. I love watching documentaries but I think the book brings up a very important point in explaining their subjectivity. I’d venture to say the majority of people see documentaries as information, they watch them in an attempt to acquire and better understand certain issues, whatever they may be. Therein lies the danger and the ethical dilemma for filmmakers. These films all too often go unquestioned by the majority of viewers and are taken as fact, giving those behind the film a lot of power and influence. Ethically, my question is do the filmmakers truly have a responsibility to viewers or is it the responsibility of viewers to understand what they’re watching? Personally I think every time someone watches a documentary they should do so with a grain of salt. Filmmakers don’t have an ethical obligation to viewers to be objective because in my mind, documentaries are foremost a film and only secondarily a source of information. Those watching should always keep this in mind.

Something that I do feel is unethical is business of entertainment through ‘reality’ or the exploitation of others. Take for example the books case on the radio host Van Lansing. When he is making money off of being out rightly racist, sexist and generally hurtful to others, I think a line should be drawn. It is not about self expression because I am not advocating preventing him from having these opinions, just financially benefitting off of them and pushing them onto the public as “entertainment”.