Ethical or Not Essay

As far as the media is concerned, star ethical standard I cheat they must follow is amenable insurance coverage. If this alone is the standard, consequently I would cut into a thumbs up for the showing of the documentary film. By this criteria alone, the ventilation of the documentary is already ethical. As claimed by the article itself, this was a obligated and important documentary. It was non primarily more or less Princess Diana or Dodi Al Fayed. It was ab forth the photographers who were subjected to an endorsement instituted and media supported lynching. Locked up with break through charge for all over two days.Two years subsequently they were formally cleared. Mohamed Al Fayed pursued an implement against them for breach of privacy and was awarded derisory damages. The in effect(p)s convolute hither are not moreover those of Princess Diana or her sons or Al Fayed. The documentary was mainly focused on the rights of the photographers involved. Thus, if the motivating for spreading the documentary is to show to the knowledge domain how they were treated without ill-motives of hurting the royal family or Princess Dianas memory, wherefore there is no reason why it should be wrong for enchant 4 air the documentary.Its ventilating system falls as trusty inform from where I stand. Why is it ethical? morals should be viewed from the point of view of the one whose spells are concerned. In this case, whether the act of reality exposure the documentary is ethical or not should be viewed from the perspective of highroad 4. many an(prenominal) great thinkers support the act of Channel 4 as ethical. Of course, this is assuming that it was through in the name of responsible reporting and without bad creed on its part. And this is a fair assumption because this is the still occurrence we can assume from the article as this was specifically mentioned therein.What I am ride at is that we cannot assume bad faith on the part of Channe l 4, desire for example, airing it adept to gain ratings or money for the in-between commercials, because these are not mentioned in the article. To proceed, I leave john go away my defense with the ethical principles ordained by Socrates, who is regarded as one of the greatest teachers of ethical motive. He say that anyone who knows what virtue is entrust of necessity act virtuously. He further tell that those who act badly, then, do so only because they are ignorant of, or infatuated about, the real nature of virtue.Applying it to Channel 4, if they acted out of responsible reporting, then they acted ethically. If it should happen that they acted badly, then they were only mistaken on what should gain been the proper conduct. This mistake should not mechanically make the act unethical. Necessarily, Channel 4 should know what responsible reporting is. In fact, it acted upon this virtue. Thus, the airing of the documentary is ethical. Confucian ethical motive allow for also support the act of Channel 4 as ethical. The nervus of Confucian ethics is vitrine.He said that it (ethics) centers neither on acts nor on their consequences, but on character. Applying this principle, airing the documentary or the consequences of airing it are not secular to deterrmine whether the act is ethical or not. What matters is the character of Channel 4. Thus, the question is whether Channel 4 aired the documentary with ill-motives or with a noble and genuine mathematical function. Seeing that Channel 4 aired the documentary out of responsible reporting, which is a noble purpose as far as the media is concerned, then the act was nothing but ethical for them to perform.However, it should be borne in mind here that there might be different factors which Channel 4 considered before airing the documentary. These other factors may possibly reach from improving ratings, to generating income from the in-between commercials, to simply just starting an intrigue. Whatever these other factors are, they will not be considered in this banter because we do not have exuberant facts from which we could draw a decent assumption. And finally, de de Spinozas view on ethics is that nothing is intrinsically good or bad, except to the extent that it is subjectively perceived to be by the individual.He therefore suggests that whether an act is ethical or not depends on the perspective of the person doing the act. Spinozas view makes my argument so simple if Channel 4 thinks it is right and ethical to air the documentary, then airing it is right and ethical. As aforementioned, the motive behind airing the documentary is responsible reporting. If responsible reporting is an ethical thing to do in the spirit of Channel 4, then it is so. Did the ordinary need to know or want to know? I will not presume to know what is the opinion of the general globe regarding the matter.So I will just hazard a guess to answer this question. And I will assure you that it will b e an bright guess. So let me proceed. Considering the facts that Princess Diana is a public figure, that the media is an industry impressed with public interest, and that the unlawful detention of persons is contrary to public policy, then I would dare say that the public should see the documentary. They need to know what is in it. In fact, it is their constitutional right to know. The spirit guarantees that the people should be informed on matters which are of public concern.It need not be belabored that the circumstances surrounding the devastation of Princess of Diana are matters of public concern. She is a renown and part of the royal family, which is the public pointedness of England. This makes her a public figure. Moreover, certain members of the media were wrongfully detained because of her death. This is also a matter of public concern. Therefore, the general public should be informed whether the rights of these people, which rights are zealously protected by no less than the Constitution, were violated or not. So yes, the public needs to know about the documentary and what is in it.