History of Journalism Ethics

This section provides a summary of the main theories of the press and its ethics, from the 17th century onward.

Societies have transmitted news since the dawn of human consciousness and pre-literate society. The origin of the modern journalist, however, begins with Gutenberg’s printing press and a host of social, political and economic changes in Western Europe that provided the conditions necessary for the emergence of a periodic news press by the 17th century. This was a press that included a variety of news and opinion for sale to a public, and it did so periodically. It took the form of weekly and bi-weekly “news books” or “news sheets” in Europe in the early 1600s. (See The Invention of Journalism Ethics.)

From this relatively modest beginning, the press grew into the daily press of the 18th century, especially in England. By the end of the 18th century, the press had played a major role in the American and French revolutions and were a major social force. The press was a “fourth estate.”

Across the 19th century, a more commercial and popular press developed into the mass commercial press of the late 1800s, now both economic and social force. The large commercial newspapers were the first mass medium. They had the staff, technology and economic means to pursue news with speed and across great distances. Rather than stress opinion, the mass newspapers began to stress the “business of news,” while journalism associations stressed the virtues of professionalism, objectivity and factual accuracy. In the 20th century, broadcast news media would join the newspapers.

By the end of the 1900s, computers linked to the Internet would create a communication revolution that would challenge the social position and standards of the professional, commercial press that had developed in the previous century.

In summary, we can identify four revolutions in Western journalism:

1. The development of a limited, but novel, “periodic news press” in the 1600s
2. The expansion of the daily press in the 18th century public sphere
3. The development of a liberal press in the 19th century, culminating in a mass commercial newspaper
4. The emergence of “new media” — global and interactive — in the 1900s

Theories of the Press
In an influential text from the 1950s, Four Theories of the Press, the authors outlined a number of “theories of press” since the 17th century.

1. Authoritarian theory of the press: The function of the press is to support the policies and actions of the state, and its authorities. The press should foster social solidarity and national unity. The state has the right to control the press for the overall public good. In many cases, controlling the press means preventing the press from embarrassing the existing government, to repress criticism and protest, and to severely restrict press freedom. The authoritarian view was prevalent in 17th century Europe where publishing came under the prerogative and censorship powers of the monarch and church. The authoritarian theory is embraced today by many leaders of non-democratic states.

2. Libertarian (or liberal) theory of the press: The function of the press is to protect the people’s liberties and rights, and to inform the public so they can participate as citizens in democratic self-government. The liberal theory prefers a privately owned news media that is maximally free to inform citizens and criticize public policy, as well as act as a watchdog on authorities. The right to publish and express oneself freely is not a prerogative of the state or a government. It is a fundamental right of free individuals. The liberal theory argues that a free marketplace of ideas, while it may cause harm over the short term, is the best safeguard in the long run for a free and liberal society.

3. The social responsibility theory: The social responsibility theory: Four Theories describes social responsibility theory as a 20th century development and critique of libertarian theory. It attempts to balance the liberal stress on the freedom of the press. It argues that such freedoms of a powerful news media must be balanced by social responsibilities. Journalists have a duty to provide well-contextualized news in a comprehensive manner. They have a duty to provide a diverse forum of views and values. They have a duty to go beyond entertaining news consumers and to provide a core of in-depth analysis on the most serious issues.

Quickstudy: Siebert, Fred et al. Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956

An alternate ‘view of press’ theory

In The Invention of Journalism Ethics, I provide an alternate, more nuanced, history of press theory and the development of journalism ethics, going beyond Four Theories. I identify six major stages in the development of journalism ethics.

Stage one: The invention of journalism ethics in the periodic news press of the 17th century, especially in London. The two traditions of factual news reporting and independent opinion-making begin here. Editors claim to adhere to such norms as impartiality, truth-telling, unbiased observation, credible informants, etc.

Stage two: The “public” ethic: The development of the 18th century public sphere stimulated the growth of a more free and diverse press, including the first daily newspapers. The roles of journalist, news reporter and editor emerge. Journalists take on the persona of reporter, reformer, “polite” commentator and revolutionary. By the end of the century, the press is a “fourth estate,” a social force to be feared or praised. All forms of journalism justify their behaviour by appeal to their role as a “tribune” and protector of the public and its liberty.

Stage three: The liberal theory of the press: The liberal theory is, strictly speaking, a 19th century phenomena, although it has long roots in the writings of Milton, Hume and other thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries. It received its definitive defence in Mill’s On Liberty.

The liberal press was a creature of liberalism as a social movement of an ascendant middle class in England and other countries. Liberalism stressed liberty, a society organized around “merit” and knowledge, and wider political representation. Liberalism stressed a free marketplace in the world of ideas and in the economy. Social progress would come through education, social reform and a press that supported liberal ideas.

Note: “Liberal press” is a misnomer. There were at least two types of liberal newspaper across the 19th century: the elite and egalitarian liberal newspapers. The English liberal press of the mid-1800s, such as the Times of London, exemplified the elite liberal newspaper. Its primary mission was that of serving the liberal elites, providing weighty opinion and educating the masses. The egalitarian liberal paper began as the cheap “penny” papers that began in the 1830s in major American cities and grew into a mass commercial press. This popular press depended on wide circulation and advertising. It had a brighter, more accessible style. Its mission was to provide “news for all” and to support a growing, egalitarian democracy.

Stage four: Objectivity and the mass commercial press: By the end of the 1800s, the development of a professional “news” press gave birth to the doctrine of objectivity — the ideal of the reporter as an independent, objective observer of events. This “traditional objectivity” became a strict methodology in newsrooms for eliminating opinion in the writing of news. By the 1930s, mainstream newspapers came to be defined in large part by an objectivity that was summarized by the mantra, “just the facts.”

Stage five: The return of interpretive journalism: Objectivity was challenged from the beginning by other forms of journalism — the muckrakers of the early 1900s, the interpretive journalism of Time magazine and the new tabloid papers. Also, from the 1960s onward, objectivity was challenged by the more personal form of broadcast news and by the popularity of investigative and literary journalism. By late century, the objective tradition was weakened further by the “civic journalism” movement and by on-line journalism. Journalism ethics in the 20th century was characterized not only by the dominance of objectivity, but also by its decline, and the return of a more interpretive journalism.

Stage six: Global journalism ethics in the 21st century: The major question of journalism ethics today is what type of ethics should develop in the 21st century. Will interpretive journalism, in the form of blogging or citizen-to-citizen communication, overwhelm the professional ethics of objectivity and verification developed by more traditional forms of journalism?

How should the ethics of journalism change to face the challenges of a new media environment? To make matters more complicated, the news media are now global in a radically pluralistic world. Is a new global journalism ethics required?

Codes of Journalism Ethics

By the mid-1800s, the main principles and standards for journalism began to be codified into formal statements for newsrooms and professional associations, especially in North America.

At first, the “codes” were hardly more than a set of instructions by a newspaper publisher to staff to follow certain rules. The rules were a combination of ethical principle and practical advice. By the late 1800s, journalism associations in North America had systematic, public-service codes of ethics for journalists as professionals.

Today, codes exist around the world for many types of entities: professional and industry associations (national and regional), news organizations and press councils.

Code writing was a sign of the growing size, impact and professionalism of journalism. Codes were written for many reasons: to meet public criticism of the press, to avoid legal restrictions, to protect standards against business values, to make journalism more professional, and to articulate what journalism stood for.

Codes in North America are voluntary, and often written in positive, inspirational language. Many journalists, fearful of restrictions to press freedom, oppose making these codes a law enforced by licensed bodies of professional journalists. In Europe and elsewhere, it is more likely that codes have been passed into law, enforced by high-level media tribunals.

History of codes

1860s-1880s Primitive rules by U.S. and Canadian editors for specific newspapers

1870s-1900s Codes for press associations in various states in the U.S.

1920s-1930s Codes for national and regional press associations in North America

1940s-1950s Codes for broadcast media and film industry in North America

1970s-1980s Codes expand to Europe (and elsewhere)

1970s — Efforts to construct international codes of ethics for media

For a major Canadian code, see the Canadian Association of Journalists’ statement of principles.
For a major American code, see the Society of Professional Journalists

top

In defence of codes
Journalism codes have many critics. Codes are criticized for being too formal and general — no principle can anticipate the complexities of concrete situations. Only case-by-case judgments are possible. Codes are said to be the creations of academics and are irrelevant to the difficult, deadline decisions of the newsroom. Codes are criticized as “legally dangerous” — documents that can be cited in lawsuits against journalists. Codes are dismissed as an inflexible, negative set of “don’ts” that attempt to force all journalists to follow the same rules. Finally, codes don’t ensure good journalism, since many newsrooms that have codes ignore them.

So what can be said in defence of codes?

1. Codes are helpful in ethical reasoning:
• They remind us of the issues, the questions to ask, the relevant standards.
• Codes encourage consistency in ethical thinking.

2. Codes increase public and professional accountability
• They articulates what journalists and newsrooms stand for.
• They allow the public to hold journalists accountable.

Principles as crucial component
Even if principles cannot anticipate all situations, principles can still play a useful role in ethical thinking. No ethical philosopher has suggested that a list of principles constitutes “ethics,” or that principles alone are sufficient for making good decisions. Principles are a cornerstone of ethical conduct, even if good conduct also requires practical wisdom and virtuous character.

The fact that principles are not “enough” only means that journalists need to develop their practical reasoning skills of adjusting principles to circumstances and circumstances to principles. The other option is to rely on inconsistent “gut feelings” or “case-by-case” judgments, where non-ethical imperatives and bias can overwhelm ethics. “Gut feelings” presume background values that need to be made explicit.

In addition, a “case-by-case” approach can be used by unethical media to avoid ethical restrictions. How can the public hold journalists accountable if journalists don’t state what general ethical rules they follow? Principles are invaluable guides amid confusing circumstances.

Codes as part of newsroom decisions
It is true that a code is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for ethical journalism. Codes may be ignored, or out-dated. In addition to a code, ethical decision-making requires the application of the code in daily editorial meetings, specific guidelines for recurring problems, methods to check on whether values are being adhered to, and a continuing dialogue with the public on how the newsroom is adhering to these values. If codes are not incorporated into the decision-making process, they will exist as irrelevant, abstract entities. But that is not the fault of codes. It is the fault of the journalists who ignore codes, or it is the fault of an incomplete decision-making process in the newsroom.

Nature of Journalism Ethics

The previous section, Approaches to Ethics, explained ethics in general. This section uses those general ideas to explain the nature and aims of a special part of ethics — journalism ethics.

Applied journalism ethics

Journalism ethics is a species of applied (professional) ethics. It is the application and evaluation of the principles and norms that guide journalism practice, with special attention to the most important problems in the field. Journalism ethics contains both applied analysis and theory. In the analysis of specific cases, journalism ethics may appeal to theoretical matters, such as the nature of ethical assertion.

Beyond journalism: Ultimately, the basis for journalism ethics transcends journalism — its principles are justified by reference to broader social and political principles. For example, the journalistic function of acting as watchdog on government is justified, ultimately, by a commitment to liberal democracy.

Ethical sphere in journalism
Ethical questions are not reducible to questions of etiquette, prudence, financial gain or law. Similarly, questions about journalism ethics are not reducible to questions about what is commonly done (etiquette), prudence (what is in the journalist’s self-interest?), financial gain (what enhances profits?) or law. Nor are ethical values reducible to “craft” values, such as the aesthetic quality of an image, or how well a story is written.

A question about journalism conduct is ethical only if it evaluates the conduct in light of the fundamental ethical principles of journalism. These are the principles that express journalism’s most important social functions. Journalism ethics depends on one’s conception of the public functions of journalism as a professional practice, and the principles and standards that promote those aims.
A question in journalism is “ethical” if it asks the following questions:
• Is the action consistent with journalism’s public purpose, which is based on some view of the good for citizens and society?
• Does it violate or enhance the principles that express this public role?

Three sources of “duties” in journalism
Why do journalists have special duties?

1. General ethical duties: Like any person or citizen, journalists should conduct themselves in accord with general ethical principles such as being truthful, keeping promises, avoiding harm and serving the public good. However, these principles receive specific interpretations in reporting and editing.

2. Journalism’s social role: Like all professionals, journalists use their skills to fulfill a social role(s) and to meet public expectations. The role is sometimes understood as arising from a social contract between journalism and society. In many Western countries, journalists are granted a constitutionally protected freedom to promote social goods, such as a diversity of views and a comprehensive analysis of events.

3. Impact and influence: Even if journalism lacked a special social role, journalists would incur ethical responsibilities due to their impact on the individuals and groups they report on, and on the society they serve.

The aims of journalism ethics
• Understanding: Deepen our understanding of journalism’s ethical functions and its principles.
• Ethical reasoning: Improve the ethical reasoning of journalists.
• Reforming: Re-define existing standards and construct new ones.
• Promoting: Promote ethical behaviour and decision-making in news media.
• Discussion: Promote public discussion of journalism ethics

“Micro” and “macro” ethics
Journalism ethics can be divided roughly into two levels:

1. Micro level: What an individual journalist should do in a particular situation; or the problems that surround a specific type of story. Micro issues include whether a journalist should use a hidden camera in a specific situation, or whether the failure to attribute an idea is plagiarism.

2. Macro level: What the news media in general should do, given their role in society. Macro issues include diversity of media content and ownership, and freedom of the press.

A traditional model of journalism ethics
The many principles, standards and values that surround the discussion of journalism can be confusing. One way to organize these ideas is to start with the “traditional ethical model” of journalism in North America, a model that goes back to the emergence of the modern, professional journalist at the end of the 1800s.
(See History of Journalism Ethics)
A traditional definition of an ethical journalist is, “An impartial communicator of important news and views to the public and from the impartial perspective of the public; using responsible and accurate methods of newsgathering, for the sake of a self-governing citizenship.”

Some of the main functions that come under this aim are:
• Inform the public on important events so as to allow self-government
• Act as a watchdog on abuses of power, both private and public
• Provide an open forum for the expression and critical discussion of issues, viewpoints and values.

Using the code of the Society of Professional Journalists in the United States, we can divide the principles that support these functions into two categories:

1. Pro-active principles and standards that direct journalists (or news media) to actively seek out and investigate truths, in an independent manner.

2. Restraining principles and standards that direct the journalists to use that freedom responsibly, by avoiding unnecessary harm and by being accountable.

Pro-active principles include:

• Seeking the truth — Journalists should pursue and investigate important truths within the constraints of daily journalism. Standards that fall under this principle include accuracy, balance and diversity, completeness and context, proportionality, fairness and objectivity.

• independently — Journalists should seek and report the truth without fear or favour. They serve the public as a whole, not factions or special interests. Standards that fall under these principles include the avoidance of conflicts of interest, independence from other institutions, refusal of special favours and the courage to criticize the powerful.

Restraining principles include:

• Minimizing harm — Journalists, in seeking truth independently, should avoid causing unnecessary harm to the subjects and sources of their stories, such as children and victims of violence or tragedy. It is impossible for any professional to avoid doing any harm. The duty is to reduce harm in the carrying out of one’s legitimate professional duties, such as not violating someone’s privacy without reason.

• Being accountable — Journalists should be able to explain and justify their actions and their stories, especially where stories are controversial or have negative impact on individuals or groups. Accountability means articulating the standards that guide one’s journalism, and providing the means through which the public can question and complain.

Relationship of the four principles: In any complex situation, journalists will have to balance two or more of these four principles. Where serious public truths are at stake, pro-active principles trump restraining principles. For example, the privacy of a politician may be violated to investigate a serious abuse of power.
Problem areas in journalism
Typical ethical problems encountered in journalism include:
• Accuracy and verification: How much evidence is required to publish a story? How much verification is possible in war zones?
• Context: Have journalists provided important context for the facts? How much context is necessary for complex stories on science, health and technology?
• Deception and fabrication: Should journalists misrepresent themselves or use recording technology such as hidden cameras? Should literary journalists “invent” dialogue or composite characters?
• Graphic images and sensationalism: When should journalists publish graphic or gruesome images? When do images become guilty of sensationalism or exploitation? When is coverage not proportional to the importance of the story?
• Illegal acts: Should a journalist ever break the law to get a story?
• Sources and confidentiality: Should journalists promise confidentiality to sources? Should journalists refuse to reveal their sources to police or the courts? When should journalists go “off the record”?
• Special, sensitive situations: How should journalists cover hostage-takings, suicide attempts and other events where media coverage could exacerbate the problem, or lead to deadly consequences?

New areas of concern
The global communication revolution has changed radically the media environment and introduced new ethical problems. Some major factors are:

1. Proliferation of news media
• Increasing competition among media providers
• Pressure to find “content” to supply new programs and on-line sites
• Many ‘media’ converge on the story of the day — wall-to-wall coverage

2. Changes in news media audiences
• Fragmentation of audiences: Smaller demographics; niche media
• Stronger demand for fresh news, live hits: less “appointment” news
• Audiences increasingly demand access to whatever photos or information is available, before traditional verification is completed
• Impatient, “remote control” audiences
• Audiences demand “interactivity” — the chance to research their own stories, and question the mainstream news media

3. Convergence of news media
• News organizations attempt to “re-assemble” audiences across media platforms
• Multi-media newsrooms: journalists work in several media
• Global news corporations through acquisition and merger

4. Increased importance of business values
• News as one part of profit-driven corporations

These factors can have both positive and negative impact on journalism.

Some positive effects are:
• Citizens have more access to different media; greater interactivity
• Reduced “gatekeeping” powers of major news organizations
• New story-telling methods through multi-media
• Convergence can bring together many resources to probe an issue

Some negative effects are:
1. A “journalism of assertion”
• More opinionated reporting to attract audiences; less verification; less objectivity; more sensationalism and increased stress on conflict

2. Pressure to lower ethical standards
• “Dumbing down” and simplifying content; less serious context, or analysis
• Editorial resources spent on entertainment and celebrity news

3. Complaints about intrusive, ubiquitous media; information glut

4. Convergence and business values
• Concerns about diversity of views in mainstream media
• Power of global media corporations
• Priority of economic imperatives over ethical duties
• Possible conflicts of interest
• Lack of journalistic independence

5. Confusion about who is a journalist, and what standards are relevant
• Rise of new media and on-line journalism questions the traditional standards of objectivity, verification and pre-publication editorial control. It questions the need for professionalism and special education for journalists. See new media ethics section.

The result?

Ethical reasoning in journalism
An important assumption of teaching journalism ethics is that ethical reasoning is a skill that can be developed and improved through study and practice. In approaches to ethics, a variety of approaches to reasoning about any ethical issue are referenced.

In this section, I present my own model of how to reason ethically in journalism. Ethical reasoning in journalism is something one “does” — applying one’s principles and standards to concrete cases, in light of the fundamental functions of journalism.

My model is consistent with these general models, and other journalistic models of ethical reasoning. My model is streamlined so as to be useful and understandable to journalists and non-ethicists. Consider it a starting point for developing your own model.

Four stages of ethical reasoning:

1. Awareness that an ethical problem exists: situation characterized by uncertainty; lack of clarity; conflicting views on what should be done.

2. Analysis of the case: Identify the ethical issue(s). Identify the conflicting values and most relevant facts.

3. Evaluation and considered judgment:
• Identify ethically permissible options: check for consequences, duties/rights, impact on one’s character and profession.
• Choose action after carefully balancing choices and weighing reasons. Construct a reasoned, principled, ethical justification. Be ready to explain one’s decision.

4. Take action and review one’s decision later: Learning from feedback to one’s actions is crucial to ethical development. Where appropriate, revise one’s principles.

Each of these four stages can be analyzed into a series of steps. Take, for example, the stage of analysis (stage 2). There are two steps in every analysis:

Step 1: What are the ethical issues?
• Identify the ethical values: distinguish ethical issues from commercial or legal issues, or self-interest.
• Consult your code of ethics for relevant principles and standards
• Estimate the likely consequences of various actions: Who will benefit or be harmed? Are any rights, duties or loyalties are involved (e.g. loyalty to source)?
• Consider the impact an action will have on one’s character or profession
• Can we minimize any unnecessary harm
• Can we explain and justify our actions to the public?
• Identify any conflicts between principle and values

Step 2: What are the relevant facts for ethics?
• Testing for facts: Are all important facts known? What facts don’t we know?
• Do we need to verify anything? How reliable are the sources of “facts”?
• Be consistent; think analogically: How is this case like other cases? How have I acted in the past? What is our newsroom policy? Would I expect another professional to act this way?

Once the analysis is completed, identify a number of options that appear to be ethically permissible — not obviously wrong. Often, each option will have both positive and negative consequences. The task is to identify the best option, given one’s principles. What action comes closest to fulfilling our professional principles?

Good questions to ask yourself:

• What is the journalistic purpose or news value of this story?
• What are my motivations in doing this story?
• How does this decision fit my overall journalism values — am I being consistent?
• Role-reversal as a check on fairness: How would I feel if this was written about me?
• Can I live with this? Does it affect my integrity?
• How would I defend this?

Approaches to Ethics

This section provides an overview of ethics in general, and journalism ethics. It identifies the major approaches to ethics and models of ethical reasoning, before explaining the nature of journalism ethics. The aim is to orient readers who are not familiar with the study of ethics.

Nature of ethics
The word “ethics” is connected intrinsically with questions of correct conduct within society. Etymologically, “ethics” comes from the Greek “ethos” meaning “character” which indicates a concern for virtuous people, reliable character and proper conduct. “Morality” is derives from “mores” or custom — the rules of conduct of a group or society. An initial definition of ethics, then, is the analysis, evaluation, and promotion of correct conduct and/or good character, according to the best available standards.

Ethics asks what we should do in some circumstance, or what we should do as participants in some form of activity or profession. Ethics is not limited to the acts of a single person. Ethics is also interested in the correct practices of governments, corporations, professionals and many other groups. To these questions, ethics seeks a reasoned, principled, position. An appeal to existing practice or the command of a powerful leader is not sufficient. To answer such questions in a consistent, reasoned manner may take us far a-field. Some ethical questions will require reflection on our basic values and the purpose of human society.

Ethics is best conceived of as something we “do,” a form of on-going inquiry into practical problems. Ethics is the difficult practical task of applying norms and standards to ever new and changing circumstances. Ethical questions arise most typically in cases where there is genuine puzzlement about what should be done in various types of situations. There is usually some practical importance or urgency to such questions. Is it ethical for journalists to reveal their sources to the courts, despite their promises of confidentiality? Is it ethical of journalists to invade the privacy of politicians to investigate allegations of mis-behaviour? One inquires ethically because one is puzzled about how existing principles might apply in a concrete situation. Ethical inquiry exists because tensions inevitably arise over what constitutes correct conduct or fair practice wherever humans live and work together. Disagreements arise not only over specific practices, but also over the interpretation of principles.

Ethics is sometimes identified with an inflexible set of rules and self-righteous moralizing. Rules say an action is either right or wrong. This over-simplifies ethics. Ethical thinking requires the guidance of principles but it should not be shackled to them. Instead, we should evaluate principles according to whether they are useful in dealing with ethical concerns. Principles, and their interpretations* change over time. No principle can anticipate all possible situations, and principles may conflict. Ethics should focus on how people interpret, apply, balance and modify their principles in light of new facts, new technology, new social attitudes and changing economic and political conditions.

Ethics is not static. Ethics consists of dynamic frameworks of principles and values. Our ethical values reflect our deepest convictions and attachments. They define who we are, and give us an ethical “identity.” Ethics is the process of inventing new and better ethical responses to problems and conflicts. This process is driven not only by social change but also by our “ethical imagination” which continually pushes on existing boundaries. For example, relatively recent ‘imaginative’ proposals include the advocacy of same-sex marriage and the idea that animals have “rights.”

Range of ethics
Ethical inquiry covers a wide range of possible subjects, such as:

• Personal ethics: e.g. questions about one’s basic values and plan of life
• Professional ethics: principles and practices of major professions
• Social and political ethics: e.g., issues of social justice, political rights
• Ethics of sexual and gender relations
• Research ethics in academia and the private sector
• Environmental ethics, including the ethical treatment of animals
• Global ethics: ethics of international affairs, human rights
• Communication ethics, including media, public relations and journalism

Theoretical and applied ethics
Ethical inquiry can occur on many levels of thought, according to one’s focus and interest. We can distinguish between two main types of ethical inquiry:

Theoretical ethics: The study of the main concepts and methods of ethics. Major questions at this level include the nature of ethical language, the justification of ethical judgments and the nature of ethical reasoning. Ethical philosophy, for example, is the systematic study of ethical experience and the justification of moral notions, beginning with those that historically and by current estimation are the most important.

Applied ethics: The application and evaluation of the principles and norms that guide practice in particular domains. The focus is on issues and problems specific to the field in question, through a combination of theory and practice. Major questions at this level include how certain principles apply to various practical problems, the ranking of principles, the standards of “best practice” and ethical decision-making in the field. The “theoretical-applied” distinction is not absolute. It is a matter of emphasis and interest. As practical, reasoned inquiry, ethics in any domain will include both practical and theoretical considerations.

Professional ethics is a major division of applied ethics. It is the application and evaluation of norms and practice in the various professions, such as medicine, journalism and law. Since the mid-1900s, many institutes, centres and journals have been established to study and enhance nursing ethics, business ethics, biomedical ethics, media ethics, the ethics of government and corporate governance and so on.

Types of ethics

By focusing on a major aspect:
One way to approach ethics is to focus on one of four recurring aspects of ethical situations: rights, goods, virtues and our communal relations with others. Ethical inquiry into correct conduct involves (1) questions about whether an action honours or violates anyone’s rights or duties, (2) questions about the “goods” that should be pursued, often thought of as the harmful or beneficial consequences of action, (3) the impact of action on the “virtue” of the actors — their character and integrity, and (4) the impact of action on our communal and “caring” relations with others.

Each of the four aspects provides an approach to ethics:

1. Teleological or “goods-based” ethics: Ethics is primarily about the aims or telos of actions — the “goods” to be pursued, including the impact of actions on individuals or groups. Ethics systems in this tradition include “consequential” theories that attempt to maximize valuable outcomes or “goods” and minimize harms. One form of consequentialism is utilitarianism, where valuable outcomes are defined in terms of utility.

2. “Duty” or “de-ontological” ethics: Ethics is primarily about the rights and duties of agents, which take precedent over individual feelings or inclinations, the wishes of the majority, or utilitarian calculations about what would make most people happy. Rights trump the pursuit of goods. There are fundamental principles and duties that restrain self-interest. Ethical systems in this tradition include the philosophy of Kant and John Rawls.

3. Virtue ethics: Ethics is primarily about developing a virtuous person and citizen. Ethics is not primarily about formulating an unchanging set of principles. It is about developing ethical character and the practical wisdom to choose the right thing to do in complex situations. Here, ethical education and development plays a central role. Ethical thought in this tradition derives from the virtue ethics of Plato and Aristotle, with its stress on achieving the good life, through virtuous dispositions. Often, such thinking is “perfectionist” by stressing that ethics should be guided by a notion of human perfection or the ideal society.

4. Ethics of care and community: Ethical deliberation should prioritize the fostering of responsible, caring relationships among people – relationships that honour their dignity, humanity and “connectedness.” This approach is embodied in a “communitarian ethics” that views values as embedded in community and shared practices. According to this approach, too much of Western ethics has emphasized the rights of atomized individuals while downplaying their duties. A primary ethical imperative, then, is to build communities that enhance compassionate and fulfilling relationships among its members. In journalism, this “ethics of care” is expressed in several ways, including the principle to “minimize” unnecessary harm to vulnerable subjects of news stories. Advocates of an ethics of care tend to prefer the “social responsibility theory” of the press over the liberal theory of the press. See theories of the press below.
Please note : This division is too simplistic. A full theory of ethics would have to make room for all four aspects. Also, some ethical systems cut across the categories. For example, Rawls’s theory of justice stresses the priority of rights, yet he also shows how the pursuit of goods is enhanced by a just social structure. Aristotle develops an ethics of virtue, which is also a teleological theory about how to achieve the supreme good of happiness. The value of this rough categorization is that it draws attention to four aspects of ethical thinking, and that some philosophers emphasize one aspect more than others.

By focusing on the “source” of ethical authority:
Even if we agree on the approach and the basic rules, we could disagree on their justification:

• Authoritative, external, voices: Ethical rules valid if they are the rules of a deity, inspired leader, a divine world order, tradition or ancient, holy, book. This tradition includes not only religions but also philosophical systems, such as the appeal to divine law by Thomas Aquinas and the appeal to a universal “natural law” by the Stoics and John Locke.

• Naturalism: Ethical judgments are based on natural feelings, conscience or reason within all humans — not on supernatural authority. Universal sentiments may include benevolence and sympathy, pleasure or happiness. Universal principles may be recognized by the faculty of reason. Naturalism includes the philosophical traditions of empiricism and rationalism, from Aristotle and John Locke to David Hume, Adam Smith and Kant.

• Social agreement, or contract: The rational basis of ethical and political rules (and arrangements) is a fair agreement among all interested parties. Historically, this agreement has been interpreted as an implicit, or explicit, social contract, or a hypothetical contract.

For a summary of approaches to ethics in general, go to http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/

Ethical reasoning and decision-making

The web site for the Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia provides a wide selection of links to models of ethical reasoning — how to make ethical decisions in general, and in specific professions. The web site also provides links to a bibliography of books and articles on ethical reasoning.