The underpinning debate
12.4 The underpinning debate
Ethics is concerned with the role of human nature and conduct; it is the values or standards by which we would see something as being correct or right. An individual’s set of values has much to do with cultural background, religion, education and other social attributes. These factors would predetermine many of the constructs that an individual puts in place from a moral point of view, and therefore be axiomatic to any ethical decision-making.
At the extremes of human behaviour there are common actions that most people would recognise as being moral or immoral. The debate also concerns the actions a society will take to keep an individual within the
Managing in the Media
boundaries of moral behaviour for that society; to punish or reform – retribution or rehabilitation. Where any society has difficulties is with what might be called the ‘boundary conditions’, where the dilemmas are at their greatest and the answers not clear-cut. The majority of the population does not have to operate under these circumstances. We abdicate our responsibility to the government, police, judges, doctors, teachers, business leaders etc. Many make or allow others to make decisions for them by default. We do not even vote in large numbers. The ‘floating voter’ determines the election outcomes. Most of us do not have to function on the boundaries of ethical decision-making.
Let us first establish the moral landscape. It has been suggested that our ethical frame of reference is taken either from a predominantly religious viewpoint or from a scientific/secular viewpoint. Ronald M. Green states
that 1 : . . . the major ethical teachings of most religious traditions are largely
compatible with various secular or rational ethical views. Religious traditions typically prohibit forms of conduct that secular culture also views as morally wrong. Almost all religious codes condemn violence against innocent persons, theft, and dishonesty.
Green is suggesting that the secular view is essentially a sub-set of any religious perspective. The religious point of view is based upon a set of beliefs taken from, for example, the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Koran. These are a set of God-given rules, or dogma. The scientific or secular point of view suggests that by deconstructing an issue into its component parts, a true statement will emerge by which the individual can arrive at an ethical and moral standpoint. Many have argued that these viewpoints can coincide happily within the one individual. Can someone be deeply religious and profoundly scientific, and not have conflicts over their moral set of values? It has been suggested that we could have an internal ‘god’ that helps us make decisions that seem right. Or is it just our conscience?
From the opening discourse on ethics and morality, we have to consider the formal and contemporary expression of morality and ethics in society – the law. A prime role for government is to protect the population, providing a safe environment against external forces and internal disorder. To do so requires an army, a police force and laws. The legal framework is usually an evocation of the moral and ethical standpoint of a particular society at a moment in time; it reflects the consensus of what is deemed good and right behaviour. Those who don’t believe in it, or who agree with the consensus
Media ethics
yet transgress, meet a set of criteria for punishment and retributions administered through the judicial system.
The law is a shifting framework. What was an appropriate law in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is clearly not an appropriate law in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was considered an appropriate law in the UK not to let women vote. More recently in the UK, in the early 1990s, the Thatcher Conservative government considered it appropriate to have a new property law, the community charge that became known as the poll tax. It was highly controversial, and resulted in riots in central London.
How individuals and communities respond to laws to which they object will
be determined by the level of democratic engagement they believe is available to them. It may not be about the action they actually take. When, for whatever reason, people feel that law is bad and they feel that the democratic system or the legal framework does not give them any redress, there is the potential for revolutionary change (as opposed to the democratic and evolutionary change that might take place over time). Clearly, in reality the process from dissaffection to revolution is a complex path.
The framework of law is only a function of society’s values at the time. Some laws are a government’s response to a media campaign event or events that have put issues into the public mind – such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (see www.hmso.gov.uk/acts). This was a response to a series of tragic high profile incidents with guard dogs and savage ‘pets’ that had maimed or killed children. The statistics did not bear out this ‘sudden’ rise in dangerous dogs. Prior to the campaign there were the same number of dogs doing harm to children. Due to public (or was it tabloid newspaper-led?) outrage there was
a need to have a law that was seen to be responding to this problem. Laws can be instigated by a subsection of society, especially if supported by the national press. In the military, judiciary and the clergy, we have the three elements of what has been termed the state. Whilst any government is made up of ‘ here today gone tomorrow’ politicians, the state remains. So does the media, labelled the fourth estate due to its influence and power.
Non-government organisations (NGOs) and pressure groups tend to act on the boundary conditions of society. They may oppose current legislation for many reasons. Consider the matter of clean water. Pressure groups such as Greenpeace may say that the water companies are not providing clean water. The water companies will dispute this; they are adhering to the legal framework and are allowed to dump chemicals x, y and z to a certain level
Managing in the Media
within the watercourses. The counterargument is that the companies don’t know what the cocktail of those chemicals is doing to the environment, even though each one in its own right may be below European or UK regulations. Due to legal interpretation and possible ambiguity, pressure groups believe that corporations often hide behind the rule of law (e.g. legal levels to dump chemicals) as much as they adhere to the spirit of the law (e.g. we don’t contaminate the water at all). This is why it is argued there that there is a need for a code of business ethics that extends beyond the strict legal framework of business behaviour.
The above illustrates the two broad schools of ethical philosophical thought. These are identified as denotologists (who have a rules-based approach) and consequentialists (who believe the outcome is key).
Denotologists argue that an action is inherently right or wrong, irrespective of its consequences. This approach has its basis in Judeo-Christian beliefs, with a clear evocation of the Ten Commandments. It is also manifest in the UK legal tradition of rights and duties. These are set against the obligations the individual has to society. The principle rests on the notion that an action should only be judged as right or moral if it conforms to an agreed set of rules by which the individual decision and resulting action may be tested. There is no reference to the final outcome of this decision.
This theory suggests that if you create enough rules within a system, you can deconstruct a dilemma into a hierarchical flow diagram by which you define your decision methodology. The final outcome is reached by satisfying the rules of the system. There are many that would endorse this theory. The difficulty arises when challenged by something unknown, outside of the rules to date. It requires a new subset of rules.
Company owners/managers devise mission statements, and from mission statements they create codes of practice, or business principles. As new business activities fall outside those existing business principles, another element or rule is added. We arrive at ‘Business Principles, revised edition, version 4’. The problem is solved until the next ambiguity. A rules-based system may deal with those conditions within some understood or known boundary very well until something new comes along to challenge the status quo . In other words, a denotological approach provides a set of codified structures that equips us with answers to everyday decisions within a known environment. This will be explored a little further in the section on business ethics.
An understanding of the consequentialist approach requires two steps. The first is to note that there is a philosophical school of thought that
Media ethics
suggests a judgement as to whether an action is right or wrong can only
be completed if we consider the outcome of such an action. The second step is to note that there is a particular version of this approach known as utilitarianism. Some commentators present utilitarianism as ‘the greatest good to the greatest number’; others as the ‘greatest happiness to the greatest number’. Good and happiness are clearly not necessarily the same thing. For example, within a religious context ‘good’ is interpreted as that which ‘God approves’. This analysis is not necessarily a God-given one.
Each of the groups – denotologists, consequentialists and utilitarians – believe they are looking for the ‘greater good’ as a means of identifying the most appropriate or ethical behaviour that will sufficiently solve the problem. As with the management theories of the 1970s, there is an implication that there has to be ‘one best way’.
In the first instance, the problem associated with the utilitarian point of view concerns the method to quantify the greatest good or happiness. What is the utility of the outcome? Here we stray into the realm of cost–
benefit analysis and having to put a price on all potential outcomes. Does the Machiavellian maxim ‘the end justifies the means’ give us sufficient cause for a course of action? This would allow us to justify slavery if a small number lived in terrible conditions whilst the rest lived very well – in this case the condition of greater good for the greater number has been satisfied.
The inherent conflict in ethical approach can be further illustrated by a recent case study. The oil company Shell International Exploration and Production’s activities in the decommissioning of the North Sea oil platform Brent Spar received a great deal of press attention. Brent Spar had reached the end of its useful life, and Shell’s intention was to dump the platform in
a deep-water trench in the Atlantic. There was a great deal of adverse publicity, highlighted by the actions of Greenpeace occupying the Brent Spar facility. At the time, several television programmes followed the events that took place. Viewed relatively dispassionately, both sides were behaving within a set of criteria in an honourable manner. Both parties were assessing the issues, yet they were coming to very different conclusions.
On one hand, a set of engineers and scientists within Shell were looking at the problem from a rules-based system. Their approach was, here’s a piece of ironmongery, what’s the best way to deal with it? They looked at the options in order to arrive at the best solution, financially, and ecologically. They looked at the situation in terms of its engineering needs, health and
Managing in the Media
safety, and the least harm to people, and they came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to find a big hole and dump it. That seemed a sound
solution for Shell from a rule-based denotologist’s point of view 2 :
Shell says it has always adopted an ethical approach to business and that all its actions are based on a comprehensive statement of business practice which is continuously updated. ‘The statement is based on our core values of honesty, integrity and respect for people,’ says spokesman Mark Wade.
Greenpeace entered the fray and argued that dumping is not the way to behave, because the outcome of Shell’s actions is one that sends the wrong signal. It is just wrong. The Greenpeace position is that you do not dump anything at sea.
The response from Shell was to offer a list of options and criteria for disposing of Brent Spar for all stakeholders to analyse. If the option to break up Brent Spar were chosen, it would actually create more greenhouse gases than if it was just dumped in the sea. Greenpeace’s response was to express the view that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Shell analysis. They argued that society should not dump its scrap cars in the village pond, even if it is a deep one.
Greenpeace argued that the consequences of the actions were inap- propriate, irrespective of how the rules-based system might suggest an outcome. The public debate ebbed and flowed for some time. The adverse publicity, especially in Germany, had a strong commercial influence in Shell. In the end, it was agreed that the platform would be broken up to form part of a harbour in Norway. Shell’s case remained that Brent Spar’s net contribution to greenhouse gases would be greater than disposing of it at sea.
Consequentialists (Greenpeace) not only see that the issue at the time is at stake, but also take a view on the overall outcome. Greenpeace argue that your actions today send signals to others about the correct ethical and moral stance to take beyond the immediate decision.
This case also illustrates that when a NGO such as Greenpeace, who have a consequentialist point of view, try to debate with a denotological group such as the Shell, who use a ranking of rules, they cannot communicate. Their mental models are profoundly different.
This case study also indicates that an understanding of an organisation’s approach to ethical issues is essential if you want to be effective in business negotiations. In the relatively mundane matter of negotiating contracts, there is a need to understand the interests of the other party. Negotiating may be
Media ethics
about understanding how your own interests are best served, but if you don’t understand the moral and ethical framework of the person or organisation with whom you are working, you are left on the wrong foot in terms of how to negotiate. Having an insight into a company’s business principles will help you to understand some of their negotiating terms of reference.