ethics in censorship
Analysis of Censorship within Ethics
Censorship refers to the suppression of information, text, and/or ideas in the media, which people find to be objectionable. In other words, it refers to withholding information from the public. The opponents of censorship assert that the progression of the world towards a society with no boundaries is being hindered through communication media censorship. In addition, censorship violates people’s freedom of speech and expression. On the other hand, the proponents point out that different communication media dabble with ideas, information, and topics that do not need promotion or even be provided to the public at all. This begs the question of whether censorship is more beneficial than otherwise (CM, 1). In that regard, this paper explains that the public benefits more with censorship than without censorship by government.
The evaluation of free expression and censorship requires the use of ethical theories. The two moral theories applicable in this evaluation are consequentialist moral theories (utilitarianism in particular) and deontological theories. Consequentialist theories, which were put forward by different philosophers, such as J. S. Mill (1950), hold that the determination of the rightness of an action is solely dependent on the degree of producing the desirable consequences. Utilitarianism in particular holds that the best action is the one which produces the greatest quantity of good for the most people. Deontological theories put forward by philosophers such as W. D. Ross, on the other hand, hold that the rightness of an action is dependent on other factors rather than the consequences. These factors include the intentions behind the action, the justness of the action, respect of the rights of people it affects, consistency with demands of duty, and the intrinsic nature of the consequences. Both theories argue in favor of rights of expression with regard to censorship (Ward, 84). This discussion in this paper
Censorship refers to the suppression of information, text, and/or ideas in the media, which people find to be objectionable. In other words, it refers to withholding information from the public. The opponents of censorship assert that the progression of the world towards a society with no boundaries is being hindered through communication media censorship. In addition, censorship violates people’s freedom of speech and expression. On the other hand, the proponents point out that different communication media dabble with ideas, information, and topics that do not need promotion or even be provided to the public at all. This begs the question of whether censorship is more beneficial than otherwise (CM, 1). In that regard, this paper explains that the public benefits more with censorship than without censorship by government.
The evaluation of free expression and censorship requires the use of ethical theories. The two moral theories applicable in this evaluation are consequentialist moral theories (utilitarianism in particular) and deontological theories. Consequentialist theories, which were put forward by different philosophers, such as J. S. Mill (1950), hold that the determination of the rightness of an action is solely dependent on the degree of producing the desirable consequences. Utilitarianism in particular holds that the best action is the one which produces the greatest quantity of good for the most people. Deontological theories put forward by philosophers such as W. D. Ross, on the other hand, hold that the rightness of an action is dependent on other factors rather than the consequences. These factors include the intentions behind the action, the justness of the action, respect of the rights of people it affects, consistency with demands of duty, and the intrinsic nature of the consequences. Both theories argue in favor of rights of expression with regard to censorship (Ward, 84). This discussion in this paper
Cited: Censorship in the Media. (n.d.). pp. 1-2. Web. 17.12.2012. < http://teach.beaverton.k12.or.us/ ~katie_rarick/8th/Censorship%20Article.pdf> Conner D., Lewis S., Talbert J., and Hearn G. Government Censorship Obligations in the Media. (2010). Web. 17.12.2012. < http://seschmid.org/E/Presentations_F10/ 2_Government%20_Censorship.pdf> Reinhard C. The Ethics of Censorship: Should Governments Cover Our Children’s Eyes? 2006: 164-172. Web. 17.12.2012. < http://ethicapublishing.com/ATEOI_ch11.pdf> Ward D. V. Philosophical Issues in Censorship and Intellectual Freedom, Library Trends, Volume 39, Numbers 1 & 2, pp. 83-91. The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois, 1991 Woloshin S. and Schwartz L. M. Smoke-Free Movies: Sense or Censorship? Effective Clinical Practice, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 29-30. American College of Physicians – American Society of Internal Medicine, 2002