100
Chapter 11
Deontology and Moral Rules
t’s possible that Chapter 10 overwhelmed some of your students, as we introduced
principles of ends-based thinking—and then subtly said that, while it may be the
default approach for most mass communicators, it may not always lead to the most
In the interest of full disclosure, you’ll see that we have a prejudice toward the
approach of W.D. Ross, whose mixed-rule deontology seems best able to handle the
competing values and loyalties faced by many mass communicators. We start the
chapter with Ross because he provides a sturdy bridge to deontology from Mills’s and
Frankena’s mature utilitarianism approaches. We move next to Bernard Gert, whose
work in deontological thought. We have found that starting with Kant can lead to a
negative reaction by students, who struggle with Kant’s absolutes and strident nature.
(We focus on his statements that we should treat people as ends unto themselves and
the autonomous use of rules; that it’s not enough to follow rules blindly but to follow
Also, many in the media use their experience in making decisions—an approach that
I
101
seems to work well with Ross’ intuitionist approach. Moreover, the values of journalism
and public relations, stated in the ethic codes of the Society of Professional Journalists’
code and the Public Relations Society of America, are Ross-like lists of obligations that
practitioners must prioritize.
Learning Objectives
A successful discussion of Chapter 11 will lead students to:
Appreciate finer distinctions between consequentialism and deontological
approaches to “doing ethics,” as students learn more about duty-based approaches.
See the “bridge” between higher-level utilitarian thinking and duty-based
approaches.
Teaching Suggestions
We suggest these activities:
1. Ask students to:
a. Create a list of duties they have in their prospective media discipline. (This
102
Make sure students don’t focus too much on values and loyalties, but instead work to
restate those as obligations and principles. (Principles, like values, are “to what,” but
they also ask: “With what purpose in mind?”)
Examples for journalists might be to seek truth, minimize harm, act independently, be
accountable, hold public figures accountable, help the defenseless, show respect when
b. Ask students to rank-order the list, from most important to least important.
Then ask students to consider their differences in the rank order, which can lead to
some lively discussion about the order of importance.
2. Work through the chapter’s key points in a lecture/discussion. If using the
accompanying PowerPoint, the points include:
a. A reminder of the Fifth Question: Who’s Whispering in Your Ear.
b. A reminder about the previous session, in which we discussed ethical
approaches that focused on reaching the decision that we expect will do the most good
d. Introducing three approaches to duty-based thinking:
i. William David Ross, who said we should sift through competing duties, with an
Doing Ethics in Media: Instructor’s Resource Manual
103
eye on consequences, and choose the most defensible action.
ii. Bernard Gert, a modern philosopher with a practical theory that says moral rules
are discovered—and we should rationally understand and impartially obey those rules.
i. The right and the good.
ii. The book’s “What Makes Right Acts Right” section offers a useful example of
stopping to help an accident victim while on your way to a job interview. The book
iv. Ross’s seven prima facie duties (the textbook includes comments related to mass
media application):
Non-maleficence—don’t purposefully do harm.
Fidelity—keep our promises
Reparation—pay back our debts, including making up for previous wrongs.
v. If Ross were sharing your office. (See notes in the PowerPoint.)
vi. Mixed Duties, Mass Media: Use a media-focused example of turning prima facie
duties into actual duties. The textbook provides examples using the two cases from
104
f. Bernard Gert: A Modern Approach to Moral Rules. He says moral rules should
focus more on evil than on doing good, because evil can do much more harm than
“doing good” can do good. (See notes in PowerPoint for more.)
i. His 10 moral rules are:
Do not cause death (permanent loss of consciousness).
Do not cause pain (or other mental suffering).
Do not deceive.
Keep your promises.
Do not cheat.
whether it’s OK to violate one of his 10 moral rules. Listed in the PowerPoint, notice
again how they are more about not doing bad than doing good.
g. Immanuel Kant: The “Strict” Deontologist.
i. We close with Kant, but his thinking about duty was among the first and most
important. His central focus was on the rules—and his belief that some rules should be
obeyed precisely because those rules are right, regardless of the result. The key points in
discussing him include:
1. Autonomous use of rules: We should obey a rule when we have a basic
2. Maxims: General rules that should be obeyed and applied to all of us at all times.
These are not role-related rules (such as the duties we generated at the first of this
105
3. Hypothetical imperative: Kant said we live most of our lives by doing things we
hope will lead to a good result—such as happiness. It’s an “If (we want something),
4. Categorical imperative: universalized maxims (or ethical principles) of
behavior—applied to all people and that go beyond our own personal wishes or desires.
5. More about categorical imperatives: They must meet some strict tests, in that
they must:
a. Be applicable to everyone (a natural law.)
6. Categorical imperatives impose perfect or imperfect duties:
a. Imperfect: Akin to Ross’s prima facie duties, these are ones that should be
obeyed all other things being equal, or supererogatory.
7. If Kant were sharing your office: He would say that you want to be a person of
“good will” by understanding and abiding by universal rules that apply in all
situations. You would only make and follow rules that can be applied universally, that
apply to you and everyone else in every situation. And those rules would respect
humanity.
craft our maxims, and questions about what to do when the people we’re dealing with
are not rational.
10. Summing Up: Note that :
ii. These theories have a lot in common—they focus on the duties we have, and
iii. All three have strengths and weaknesses.
iv. The textbooks authors suggest that Ross may work best when doing mass
Case Study Notes
Note: Take another look at the cases printed in Chapter 10, this time through the eyes of duty–
based philosophers. If students wrote down their thoughts from the previous chapter’s look at
Case 10.1) Journalism: How (and Whether) to Cover a Prank
It may well be that a student who is serious about the duties of journalism might be
more likely than a utility-based thinker to decide to pursue the story about the dead
107
On the other hand, a student might argue that Ross’s prima facie duty of non-
maleficence is tops, along with gratitude for the dean’s previous help as a student.
Case 10.2) New Media: Do You Take the Ads?
Ross’s duties of non-maleficence, fidelity, self-improvement, and justice may tie into
this case study, in which from a deontological perspective it might be difficult to justify
taking seemingly deceptive ads. The question to students may be whether taking such
ads is purposely doing harm, if they can argue that it’s the advertiser (and not you) who
The question of whether you’re responsible for the content of another company’s ads
may also come into play using Gert’s approach. Putting those ads on could cause a loss
A student using a Kantian approach could create one of two maxims: “Companies
108
Question 4, about the duty to nonprofit groups if all the ad spots are sold, raises
interesting issues for deontologists. Essentially, giving ad space to nonprofits may be
seen as a supererogatory act, although Ross may see it as an act of beneficence. Is taking
Case 10.3) Public Relations: The Big Weekend
As mentioned previously, this case was based on a true story involving a real hospital’s
fund-raising efforts, and the hospital’s response was a teleological one—that raising
overall awareness and a little money is more important than every fund-raising venture
be able to produce a large percentage of income toward programming. That hospital,
however, might be hard-pressed to state the same case if it used duty-based ethics.
Duty-based thinking for this case may boil down to the good generated by events that
do not raise large amounts of money. The Ross prima facie duties of non-maleficence,
A Kantian maxim seems easy to draw for people who believe that “Big Weekend”
109
should be changed: “Nonprofits should disclose the percentage of each fund-raising
even that goes toward programming.” Others may be able to craft a narrower rule that
Case 10.4) New media: The Nathan Freedonia ad
The difficulty in this case is knowing that making the ad as is will likely harm the
widow, but not making the ad could harm the agency and, indirectly, people who do
not see the ad and change their driving-and-texting behavior.
The Ross duties of non-maleficence, fidelity, gratitude, and beneficence seem to come
into play here. The value of loyalty (not mentioned in the Ross list) also seems to be tied
To make a Kantian argument, you should carefully consider whether the ad will be
effective before you go any further. (Questions about the ad’s effectiveness came up in
the Chapter 10 analysis in this manual.) A maxim such as, “I will not let my clients
Case 10.5) Entertainment: The VIM Kids
110
Knowing what we know about what happens to many child stars, it might be difficult
for someone to use Ross or Kant to justify making such a movie. Both may argue that
Gert, too, might struggle with seeing how the movie is anything but bad.
On the other hand, they might argue that the movies (and the use of child actors) could
be justifiable if every effort is made to protect the children from harm and to make sure