Blog 6: Ethics in Journalism

Blog 6: Ethics in Journalism

In this week’s class, I learned about the history of ethics most valuable philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates is credited for introducing the topic of ethics as a philosophical discipline in the Western intellectual tradition, meaning that he engaged in, and encouraged his students to engage in, theoretical discussions about values, good character, and good behavior (Rosenstand, 392). Plato, Socrates student, expanded on that and created the Academy that furthered the pursuits of ethical learning. He is also noted for his ethical theory on Forms or an ideal abstraction and sole source of each thing that resembles it (Rosenstand, 413). Aristotle was the opposite as he thought the knowledge cloud be directly sought and found in reality. Aristotle theorized the Golden mean or the balance of ethics in moderation.

            This week’s ethical dilemma brings us into the journalistic practices of Dr. Sanjay Gupta CNN's medical correspondent.  Dr. Gupta is getting ethical heat brought upon him for commonly interchanging his doctoral skills with the stories he covers for CNN. He's been filmed performing surgical feats at several locations such as Haiti or the earthquake crises currently going on in Nepal. He recently performed craniotomy and saved the life of an 8 year old in Nepal. Other journalists seem to think that he is performing these deeds for self-promotion and is making the story about himself. The ethical question here today is should journalistic practices and medical intervention be separate entities to prevent self-promotion?

            Personally I feel that what Dr. Gupta is doing is ethically acceptable. Anytime you put yourself on television you are promoting yourself. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of journalists that are promoting the story of the earthquake disaster in Nepal right now and are standing by as the death toll rises. Dr. Gupta is going above and beyond what is required of him and not only promoting that Nepal needs humanitarian aid, but that it's in desperate need of medical attention. I feel that if he has the skills to be able to help someone then why should he standby to make other journalists happy? As a doctor, he took a Hippocratic Oath which requires he performs in situations such as this. I believe that what he is doing is virtuous as a person who does what he does best and does it excellently on a regular basis (Rosenstand, 392). We may see some of the good that Dr. Gupta does on television, but what about all the good that he does off camera? Does that make him a better or worse journalist? The Socratic principle states: that truth should not be confused with appearance. The appearance of something -a person, or a situation-is not necessarily the same as its true nature (Rosentand, 407). So could Sanjay Gupta be a heartless man off camera? It's possible, but after seeing his actions across the world I would like to think he's a man of reason.

Works Cited

Rosenstand, N. (2013). Virtue Ethics from Tribal Philosophy to Socrates and Plato. In The Moral Of The Story An Introduction To Ethics (7th ed., p. 392, 407, 413). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Links

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/01/cnn-physician-journalist-ethical-dilemma-nepal-sanjay-gupta

Blog 5: Ethics Of Gene Editing

Blog 5: Ethics Of Gene Editing

            In this week’s class we learned about the importance of personhood, human rights, and the justice system. Today, I'm going to focus on what it means to be a person and what we consider to be human. Our book describes a person is someone who is capable of psychological and social interactions with others, capable of deciding on a course of action and being held responsible for that action (Rosenstand, 321).  However, when you dive a little deeper, being human can be described as so much more than that.  In the United States, it's illegal to have an abortion once a mother passes her 24th week of pregnancy, because that's when scientists decided a fetus becomes a person. This has been widely debated especially among religious fanatics, because who's to say life doesn't begin on a cellular level?

            This opens us up into the topic of in ethics in the human genome. Reports have swept the world today announcing that a University in Guangzhou attempted to edit or alter the human genome. This has taken the scientific community by storm and has led to moratorium meetings by the world’s leading scientists. The Chinese attempted to DNA edit using CRISPR/CAS9 to replace the genes that cause a blood disorder. The experiment failed due to the embryo not accepting the manifestation of the new genes, but ended up creating quite the buzz. Nonetheless, had this experiment succeeded this would have created drastic bounds and leaps in the future of genetic modification. The CRISPER/CAS9 technique has already proven useful in other organisms which thus led the Chinese to this experiment.

            I believe at this state and time that the world isn't ready to edit the human genome and is definitely considered unethical. Tinkering with our genes from a utilitarian standpoint could show some great benefits for humanities fight against disease and illness. Although, under Kant's ideology using our genome as a means to an end would certainly make this unjust.  The idea of genetic alteration has been expressed in the past with movies and television, but I feel like the general public was unaware with exactly how much of a reality it really is. I'm hoping that this failed experiment gives the topic a breath of fresh air and makes people aware that some serious decisions need to be made in the near future. With technologies such as this available, the next era of mankind is on the horizon.

Works Cited

Rosenstand, N. (2013). Personhood, Rights, and Justice. In The Moral Of The Story An Introduction To Ethics (7th ed., p. 321). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/america-needs-figure-ethics-gene-editing-now/

Blog 4: The Ethics of Digital Necromancy

Blog 4: The Ethics of Digital Necromancy

            In this week’s class we learned about the two ethical theories utilitarianism and Kant's deontology.  Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that concentrates on maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. Therefore, whatever causes happiness and decreases pain is morally right. Whatever causes pain or unhappiness is morally wrong (Rosenstand, 232). On the opposite end of the spectrum we have Kant's deontology or the theory of moral obligation. Deontology focuses on the intentions of an action instead of the consequences.  So, if you walked your neighbor’s dog while they were on vacation and the dog broke off the leash and ran away you would be morally right. Your action of doing your neighbor the favor of watching his animal overthrows your consequence of losing the dog.

            This leads to our topic of the week which is digitally remastering dead celebrities. It's not only becoming the norm in Hollywood, but the music industry as well. This technology has been around awhile now with such demonstrations as Tupac Shakur's CGI Coachella performance back in 2012. Recently, the re-imagining of Bruce Lee for a Johnnie Walker commercial has stirred up quite the buzz. Most actors now-a-days are getting their bodies scanned so that they can control and sell their image rights later in life. Unfortunately, that's not the case with actors from the first half of the 20th century that have passed away. Since most of these actors had no foresight of this technology their imaging rights can be used freely. The Galaxy Chocolate ad of Audrey Hepburn and Johnnie Walker ad of Bruce Lee are shining examples of this.

            The Kant deontologist might say that the re-imagining of such stars is morally wrong since the intention of using Audrey Hepburn's stardom is to make money for a chocolate company. The utilitarian might say that this action if morally right since even though the intention was to make money off Audrey Hepburn, she has now been exposed to millions in a new generation of kids that might never have known about her. Soon those kids are watching her movies and thus honoring the memory of a once phenomenal actor. Either way you look at it, the industry is walking a very fine line and might want to consider their actions should they keep doing this.

Works Cited

Rosenstand, N. (2013). Using Your Reason, Part 1: Utilitarianism. In The Moral Of The Story An Introduction To Ethics (7th ed., p. 232). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Links

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/apr/10/bruce-lee-audrey-hepburn-ethics-digital-necromancy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbrFmPBV0Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx9eDoS76LM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPyoiOTdHio

Death of babies at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust

Blog 3: Death of babies at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust

      This week's topic in class talks about the ethical relativism theory of ethics and why it doesn't quite encompass all the truths of ethics. Ethical relativism states that there is no universal truth and that each culture has its own set of rules. Furthermore, those rules are valid for that culture and should not interfere with our own set of rules. Although this is an interesting and relative way to ethically reason, there are many reasons why it doesn't fit. For example, not being able to criticise another cultures act such as the holocaust in Nazi Germany is a near impossibility which negates we would be able to hold to this theory. Later on in the chapter, we learn about James Rachels values that all cultures share universally. One of these is a policy for caring of infants to ensure the continuation of the group.

      The death of 11 babies and one mother at the University Hospitals of Morcambe Bay NHS Trust can further enforce that belief. We hear stories of malpractice in hospitals all the time, but when it deals with over 12 avoidable deaths within a 9 year span it's hard to ignore. One of the greatest joys in life is having a child. For your child to be taken from this earth within 9 days due to negligence is unacceptable. A big reason why we don't hear of atrocities like this is the "nobody gets hurt" attitude hospitals and midwife associations take to bury these kinds of stories. It's completely unethical and results in sloppy procedures that get people killed. I wish we could say this was an isolated incident, these practises are happening all over the world and they need to be stopped. I hope the new National Director of Patient Safety, Dr. Mike Kurkin, will be able to make a difference in this hospital and echo those policies to the rest of the medical community.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31699607

      

Blog 2: Verdict of Chris Kyle & Chad Littlefield Murders

Blog 2 Ethical Issues In the News

Verdict of the murder of Chris Kyle & Chad Littlefield

Since this week’s chapter talks about learning moral lessons from stories I thought I would talk about one of the most prevalent stories we hear today: the wartime story. In the typical wartime story we are taught what it means to h ave duty, honor, and how glorious it is to die in battle. However, in the second half of the 20th century, we started to see stories come out about how dark and horrifying war can actually be.

Enter American Sniper a war movie showing the inner struggle between coming home and going back to war zones can be. This book/movie has brought up quite the controversy as it glorifies a man’s life that has had 160 confirmed kills in his tours in Iraq. This brought up many ethical debates such as: Is it okay to shoot children if they are considered a possible threat against American lives? Are all 160 of these killings justifiable? At what point can a man whose job is to kill come back and be a functional member of society? The ironic part of the movie is after Chris finally comes home he is killed by another veteran he's trying to help get through PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) out on a gun range.

This all leads up to my news article about the verdict of Eddie Ray Routh the convicted murderer of Chris Kyle and his buddy Chad Littlefield. Eddie Ray Routh was convicted guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. I found this verdict quite surprising since the state of Texas is known for their acts of capital punishment and I thought the death sentence was going to be an option. At the end of American Sniper, the movie depicts the funeral of Chris Kyle and shows how proud the state of Texas was of his service. The jurors only took three hours to decide the verdict on this case. Now, I'm not saying this man didn't deserve what's coming to him, because I most certainly do. However, due to the popularity of the film and how celebrated Chris Kyle was in Texas don't you think the court was a little quick to decide this man was guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity? Couldn't the whole courtrooms opinion of this case been completely swayed by what happened in the movie? The guy definitely has a few screws loose and I believe he got what he deserved.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/24/us/american-sniper-chris-kyle-trial/

My 1st blog

Hey Class,

I ran out of time this week to post a story as I'm currently in Poland. However, next week I'll have a something interesting for you to read. I hope y'all enjoy.