“The Ethics of Visual Rhetoric & Photo Manipulation”

by Amber McDonnell | Xchanges 10.2/11.1

Ethical Theories: Deontology and Consequentialism

In the case of BP’s public relations blunders during July 2010, it seems easy to condemn the multibillion-dollar corporate giant. While it should not be argued that BP is innocent in manipulating images, as communicators, we should consider a more holistic approach to the scenario. For the sake of developing more sturdy ground to evaluate our own visual communication practices, I will review two appropriate ethical theories and then apply them to the scenario in the next section.

Deontology

Deontology is commonly understood as rights or duty-based ethics. This means that the consequences of an action are not considered in the decision-making process. Kant stated that everyone has an innate moral sense, and that this sense should be coupled with reason to develop a “categorical imperative” that allows us to make decisions based on good will and a sense of duty, without regard for the consequences of our actions (Dombrowski, 2000, p. 47–48). Kant also points out two guiding principles: that we should treat decisions as if they would become universal laws, to be abided by everyone, everywhere, regardless of the consequences (Geirsson & Holmgren, 2010, p. 157) and that we should always treat human beings as ends, never as means to an end (Geirsson & Holmgren, 2010, p. 161).

One approach to deontological ethics appropriate in considering BP’s actions is rights-based theory, which holds that an agent has the duty to “respect the moral rights of all morally considerable recipients” (Kernohan, 2012, p. 85) when making decisions. Under ethical egoism — “the theory that people should always act in their own self-interest” (Kernohan, p. 41) — an actor acts in his or her own self-interest above all else.

Consequentialism

Consequentialist ethical theory almost exactly opposes that of deontology. Actors operating under consequentialism believe that the consequences of an action or decision constitute whether the action or decision was good or bad. Kernohan (2012) writes that subjective consequentialism, or utilitarianism, “claim[s] that the intrinsic value which we ought to maximize pertains to the actual mental states of recipients” (p. 57) and that a decision is right or good if it creates the “maximum aggregate amount of utility.” When compared to Kant’s two guiding principles, there is a stark difference: the consequentialist lens dictates that the ends justify the means. In other words, it does not matter how you reach a “good” objective, because any means of reaching that objective are ethically acceptable.