"The Ethics of Visual Rhetoric & Photo Manipulation"

 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 for committing multiple careless mistakes. 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. BP admitted to altering photographs, but the alterations alone are not proof of unethical behavior. For the sake of developing more sturdy ground to evaluate our own visual communication practices, we might weigh the options available to BP employees when faced by immense corporate and public pressure. In order to do this, I will first review two appropriate ethical theories and then apply them to the scenario in the next section. Deontology and consequentialism demonstrate contrast and range in the decision-making process and allow BP’s decision to manipulate press photos to be considered more flexibly.

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 concerning duty-based ethical reasoning: 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 (including ourselves) as ends, never as means to an end (Geirsson & Holmgren, 2010, p. 161). One approach to deontological ethics that is appropriate in considering BP’s actions is rights-based theory. Rights-based theory holds that an agent (the person/thing performing an action) has the duty to “respect the moral rights of all morally considerable recipients (the person/thing with moral standing receiving the action)” (Kernohan, 2012, p. 85) when making decisions. Moral standing, of course, depends on the situation in cases of environmental impact and the rights of animals. However, fellow human beings have moral standing, unless decision makers are operating under an ethical egoism lens. Kernohan describes this lens of ethical theory as, “[…] the theory that people should always act in their own self-interest, that they are morally obligated to do what is best for themselves” (p. 41). Under ethical egoism, an actor or moral agent acts in his or her own self-interest above all else.

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.” This becomes problematic when decision makers attempt to define what constitutes utility. To solve some of these issues, utilitarianism is split into two subcategories, but even these subcategories are somewhat problematic. One subcategory of utilitarianism is preference-satisfaction utilitarianism, which values actions that satisfy “desires and wants” of recipients (p. 57). When compared to Kant’s two guiding principles, there is a stark difference between deontology and consequentialism: not only would the actor not act as if his/her actions would become universal law (because every consequence, and therefore every decision, would undoubtedly vary), but 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.