Summary of all the compulsory content (week 1-8) of the course Communication Ethics (CM3010) of the International Bachelor of Communication and Media - 3rd year.
Main literature consist of chapters 1,2, 6-11 of the book: 'Elements of Moral Philosophy', by Rachels & Rachels, 2012 (7th edition). ...
Thank you so much for your positive review, I really appreciate it! ^.^
By: anoukpruijsers0 • 1 year ago
By: hnguyn • 2 year ago
By: gycc • 2 year ago
Thank you so much for your positive review, I really appreciate it! ^.^
Seller
Follow
gycc
Reviews received
Content preview
communication ethics cm3010 | ibcom ba year III - term III (2021-2022) [by gycc]
COMMUNICATION ETHICS
(literature notes)
compulsory literature & articles;
‘The Elements of Moral Philosophy’
by Rachels & Rachels (2012)
Week I | 07.02.2022 - foundations: media, ethics, and morality
Chapter 1 ‘What is Morality?’
1.1 the problem of definition
Moral philosophy → study of what morality is and what it requires of us
It would be useful to have a simple, uncontroversial definition of morality, but that’s
impossible. There are many theories, and any definition beyond Socrates’s formulation is
bound to offend something/someone. Therefore, this book enhances the term ‘minimum
conception’ → a core that every moral theory should accept.
Through the discussion of handicapped children, moral controversies and features of the
minimum conception will be brought out.
1.2 first example: baby theresa
❖ Baby Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders
➢ Often referred as ‘babies without the brain’, but the baby can still breathe and
possess a heartbeat
❖ Knowing she could never be conscious, her parents made the decision to volunteer her
organs for immediate transplant
❖ However, the Florida laws forbid the removal of organs until the donor passed away -
nine days later, Theresa left, but it was too late as her organs deteriorated too much
❖ Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated and opinions were divided
➢ Ethicists would call it a horrendous proposition while the parents and doctors
did not, but who is actually right?
❖ The benefits argument
➢ Reason: if we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to
do so. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without
harming Baby Therea. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs
➢ Justified? Being alive is a benefit only if it enables you to ‘have a life’.
Therefore, even though Theresa might remain alive for a few days, it would do
her no good
❖ The argument that we should not use people as means
➢ Reason: it is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends - taking
Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit the other children
1
, communication ethics cm3010 | ibcom ba year III - term III (2021-2022) [by gycc]
➢ Justified? ‘Using people’ typically involves violating their ‘autonomy - the
ability to decide how to live one’s own lives’ through manipulation, trickery or
deceit. Taking Theresa’s organs could not thwart her autonomy, because she
has no autonomy (she cannot make decisions or have wishes)
➢ When people are unable to make decisions for themselves, there are two
reasonable guidelines for those that must do it for them:
1. What would be in their own best interests? - taking Theresa’s organs
would not affect her interests as she is not conscious
2. If he/she/they could tell us what she wants, what would she say? -
Theresa sadly has no preferences nor has she ever had any
❖ The argument from the wrongness of killing
➢ Reason: it is wrong to kill one person to save another
➢ Justified? The prohibition against killing is one of the most important moral
rules - the question is whether taking the organs should be regarded as an
exception to the rule
➢ Possibility: is it wrong to kill one person to save another, but not always -
perhaps, it needs to be seen as Baby Theresa already being passed away; as the
American law was changed from not when the heart stops beating, but when
the brain stops functioning, the argument could be ‘diminished’ as taking their
organs would not involve ‘killing’ someone
1.3 second example: jodie and mary
❖ In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo gave birth to conjoined twins, Mary and
Jodie, with the latter being stronger and providing blood for her sister
➢ Doctors said that without intervention, the girls would die within six months;
the only hope was an operation to separate them
➢ The parents were devout Catholics and refused permission for the operation,
but the hospital petitioned the courts for permission to perform the operation
anyway; as a result, Jodie was the only one that survived
❖ Question to be answered: would it be right or wrong to separate the twins?
❖ The argument that we should save as many as we can
➢ The choice of saving one infant or letting both die; isn’t it plainly better to
save one?
➢ People were persuaded by the idea that we should save as many as we can
❖ The argument from the sanctity of human life
➢ The parents loved both of their children, and they thought it would be wrong
to kill one of them even to save the other
➢ The idea that all human is precious, regardless of age, race, social class, or
handicap - extremely emphasised in religious writings
➢ In traditional ethics, the prohibition against killing innocent humans is
absolute
2
, communication ethics cm3010 | ibcom ba year III - term III (2021-2022) [by gycc]
➢ However, the Lord Justice denied that the operation would kill Mary; instead,
it would only separate Mary from her sister and that her own body is the one
that couldn’t sustain her life
➢ There is a more natural objection to the Argument from the Sanctity of Life:
perhaps it’s not always wrong to kill innocent human beings - killings may be
justified when three conditions are met:
■ The innocent human has no future because she is going to die soon no
matter what
■ The innocent human has no wish to go on living
■ This killing will save others, who can go on to lead full lives
1.4 third example: tracy latimer
❖ Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, was killed by her father in 1993
➢ Robert Latimer had put Tracy in the cab of his pickup truck and piped in
exhaust fumes until she died - at that time, Tracy weighed less than 40 pounds
and she was ‘functioning at the mental level of a three-month-old baby
➢ Robert Latimer was tried for murder, but the judge and jury wanted to
sentence him for only 1 year instead of the supposed 10-year sentence;
however, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that the mandatory sentence
must be imposed
❖ Legal questions aside, did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong?
❖ The argument from the wrongness of discriminating against the handicapped
➢ When Robert Latimer was given a lenient sentence by the trial court, many
handicapped people felt insulted - handicapped people should be given the
same respect and the same rights as everyone else
➢ Discrimination is always a serious matter, because it involves treating some
people worse than others, for no good reason
➢ However, Robert Latimer argued that Tracy’s celebrity was not the issue, it
was ‘about mutilation and torture for Tracy’
❖ The slippery slope argument
➢ ‘We may feel sympathy for Robert Latimer, it was said; we may even think
that Tracy Latimer is better off dead’ - this is a very dangerous thought
➢ If we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will slide down a ‘slippery slope’,
and at the bottom of the slope, life will be held cheap
➢ Without the benefit of hindsight, however, slippery slope arguments are hard
to assess - those include to defend Mr. Latimer may find the dire predictions
unrealistic, while those who want to condemn may insist that the predictions
are sensible
1.5 reason and impartiality
There are two main points about the nature of morality:
1. Moral judgments must be backed by good reasoning
3
, communication ethics cm3010 | ibcom ba year III - term III (2021-2022) [by gycc]
If we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as
possible by reason - the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always
the thing best supported by the arguments. This is a general requirement of logic that
must be accepted by everyone, regardless of their position on any particular issue.
Of course, not every reason that may be advanced is a good reason, there are also bad
ones. How do we go about assessing arguments?
❖ Get one’s facts straight
➢ Not as easy as it sounds as key facts might be unknown
➢ Another problem might be human prejudice → often we want to
believe something because it supports our preconceptions
➢ Facts exist independently of our wishes, and responsible moral
thinking begins when we try to see things as they are
❖ Bring moral principles into play
➢ Most moral arguments consist of principles being applied to particular
cases, and so we must ask whether the principles are justified and
whether they are being applied correctly
➢ However, arguments can go wrong in many ways, and we must be alert
to the possibility of new complications and new kinds of error
2. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests
❖ Almost every important moral theory includes the idea of impartiality → the
idea that each individual’s interest are equally important; no one should get
special treatment and no members of particular groups as inferior
❖ Impartiality is closely connected with the idea that moral judgments must be
backed by good reasons
❖ The requirement of impartiality is at bottom nothing more than a rule against
treating people arbitrarily; it forbids treating one person worse than another
when there is no good reason to do so
1.6 the minimum conception of morality
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason - that is, to do
what there are the best reasons for doing - while giving equal weight to the interests of each
individual affected by one’s decision. Becoming this conscientious moral agent means that
someone will be:
❖ Concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he/she does
❖ Careful in sifting facts and examining their implications
❖ Accepting principles of conduct only after scrutinising them to make sure they are
justified
❖ Willing to ‘listen to reason’ even when it means revising prior convictions
❖ Willing to act on the results of this deliberation
4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller gycc. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.22. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
