Learning objectives

Identify and recall the key principles of the major ethical systems
Understand how ethical systems are related to and interact with other
normative systems such as law
Gain an understanding of the tensions which occur as a result of these
interactions and how they manifest in real life
Understand how these tensions are managed and navigated

Ethics: An Introduction
Like many other words in the modern English language, the term ethics has its
roots in Ancient Greek philosophy. The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote a text
called Ta Ethika which discussed virtue and moral character and it is from the
title of this text which we derive the term ethics.
So we have an idea of where the term came from, but what does it mean today?
The Oxford Dictionary of English has the following definition:
Moral principles that govern a persons behaviour or the conducting of an
activity
Therefore ethics serve as a sort of moral compass to guide our behavior.
Moral principles help us differentiate good from bad, right from wrong and aid us
in making the appropriate decisions.
Looking at this definition a little more closely, it seems possible that each of us may
have different moral principles which govern our behavior. Our experiences in life,
upbringing, education, profession and even our religion vary widely, therefore the
content of these principles will vary according to the individual.
Do you agree that morality and ethics are subjective? I.e do they vary
depending on the individual concerned? Do you think this diversity is
chaotic and undesirable? Or is it acceptable given that we all have the
freedom to believe in whatever we want?

Ethical systems
If all this talk of chaos and disorder is worrying you, do not despair- although
personal moral systems vary widely depending on the individual, we are still able to
classify them under a number of taxonomies or categories.

Utilitarianism:
Modern utilitarianism is widely attributed to a pair of English philosophers Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarians argue that an ethical action is one which
maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people.
In Benthams words:
It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of
right and wrong

A major problem with utilitarianism is the difficulty with calculating happiness. We

cannot attach a value to how happy a person is feeling. Thus any calculations can
only be approximate and will probably not be accurate. If so, is utilitarianism still a
viable ethical system to guide our decisions?
Are you happy with the system proposed by Bentham and Mills? Do you
think it is possible to quantify (count) happiness?
Later scholars such as Popper (1945) suggest that Bentham-style classical
utilitarianism may suffer from the law of diminishing returns, i.e. what is happiness
to a man who is already happy as compared to suffering to a man who is already
suffering? Thus Popper advocates that we should use the criterion of reducing
suffering as far as possible.
Do you think Poppers theory solves the problem? Can we quantify
suffering?
John Stuart Mill, the other great utilitarian philosopher proposed what is now known
as the harm principle which argues:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others.
Put simply Mills argues that causing harm to a person (a wrongdoing in Mills
opinion) is justified if and only if the purpose is to prevent harm being caused to
other people. Mills harm principle is heavily influenced by utilitarianism since he
argues that violence against a person is justified if as a result of that violence, other
people are not hurt (and so remain happy).

Unfortunately, the harm principle and utilitarianism can lead to some rather
startling conclusions. See for example the statement by Nikolai Yezhov who headed
the NKVD during Stalins Great Purges and was responsible for executing more than
600,000 citizens for crimes against the state in 1937 and 1938 alone.
There will be some innocent victims in this fight against Fascist agents. We are
launching a major attack on the Enemy; let there be no resentment if we bump
someone with an elbow. Better that ten innocent people should suffer than one
spy get away. When you chop wood, chips fly.
Nikolai Yezhov Head of the
NKVD

From the statement by Yezhov, we may observe utilitarianism at its crudest: a

quantitative measure comparing the harm of a single spy and that brought to ten
innocent people. From this example we see how vulnerable utilitarianism is to
manipulation- our inability to quantify suffering or happiness means we can only
make very rough estimates of these values. Yezhov has manipulated this inability to
exaggerate the potential suffering Nazi spies might cause in order to justify
massive executions on a utilitarian basis.
Do you think Yezhovs manipulation is an isolated case? Can you think of
similar examples?

Religious sources
These can take the form of imperatives or commands contained in scripture
to adhere to a certain set of beliefs or a way of life. E.g. one of the 10
commandments received by Moses in the Old Testament prescribes that Thou shalt
not kill- it is an instruction to the faithful not to undertake in killing. Thus ethical
systems based on the Christian religion would incorporate or adapt their
command into a rule against killing.
Another way which ethical systems develop from religious sources is by analogy
from the lives of religious figures such as the Prophets described in scripture. For
example in Islam, the Sunnah records the teachings and practices of the Prophet
Mohammed and serves as an example for Muslims to follow.
While religion does provide a strong incentive for people to abide by the ethical
systems, there are still several difficulties with ethical systems based on religion.
A major problem with enforcing religio-ethical systems is that religions often differ
greatly in the content of their beliefs. For example, most Christians define marriage
as a union between one man and one woman. In contrast, Islam allows men to take
up to four wives under certain limited circumstances. Should a Muslim man living in
3

a Christian country be made to conform to the ethical system practiced by the

majority? This is a highly sensitive issue which is especially relevant in modern
societies which are often multi-religious (e.g. Singapore). In fact, the friction
between competing religio-ethical systems has caused serious social tensions
in countries such as the UK where there is a significant Muslim population living in a
society heavily influenced by Christian values.
Do you think believers of a minority faith should be made to conform to
the expectations of the dominant religion in their society?

Professional ethics
Ethical systems may also be imposed on members of a profession. The Hippocratic
Oath is a pledge taken by doctors worldwide and is one of the oldest examples of a
code of conduct applying to a profession. Lawyers also take an oath and are likewise
governed by a code of conduct. This code sets the minimum standards which
members of the profession are expected to follow.
Extract from the Hippocratic Oath:
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment
and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I
will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Conflict! Tension between ethical systems

Now that we have examined some of the sources of ethics and their major tenets, it
is possible to see the potential for conflict when such systems interact. What greatly
increases the potential for conflict is that our ethical viewpoint is often influenced by
factors such as culture, religion and experiences in life. Therefore, the ethical
viewpoint taken by individuals is highly subjective (i.e. it is heavily influenced by
our personal opinions, tastes etc). Remember what we said about moral compasses
and lighthouses? In an ideal world, the needle on our moral compass would all point
in the same direction. In the real world they are all pointing in different directions.
So if we cannot all agree on what is ethical that leaves us with several problems.
Firstly, our disagreements on what is ethical or not may result in open conflict (see
for example the disagreements on Stem Cell research below). Secondly, it raises the
issue of what kind of behavior should be allowed and what should be punished. The
answer to this may seem straightforward: actions which are morally wrong should
4

be punished. But how do we know what is wrong? Is an action wrong because it

is contrary to the ethical views held by most members of society or is it wrong only
if it goes against the ethical systems of the person who committed the action.
Heres an illustration of the riddle:

The Story of Alex Crook

Alex Crook was born into a family of pickpockets. His parents, both career
pickpockets, have very unique views on parenting. From the day he learnt to
walk, Alex has been schooled in the age-old art of pocket picking. The rule in
the Crook household is a simple one- one must not pass up an opportunity
to pick a pocket, failure to seize the chance to pick a pocket is punished by a
severe beating and a harsh scolding about the immorality of not picking
pockets at every chance. Unlike other children, Alex does not attend school,
his parents believing that pick pocketing is a far more lucrative career than
anything a university degree can provide. Thus Alex has never been out of
his house or interacted with children his age. One fine day, while in the
garden getting some sunshine, Alex spots a man with a fat wallet bulging
out of his rear trouser pocket. Instinctively he attempts to steal the wallet
but is promptly apprehended by the man and brought to court. Asked
whether he admits his guilt, Alex is genuinely surprised, insisting to the
judge that not pickpocketing is unethical.
Can we say that Alex has done something unethical? To most of us it would
seem clear that stealing anothers property is unethical and immoral. But
would Alex know given that he has been educated in a household that
encourages stealing? If he genuinely thinks that it is ethical, is it right
that we punish for something he thought was the right thing to do?

The last sentence in our hypothetical family demonstrates the weakness of personal
ethical systems- they are subjective. To overcome this deficiency, societies develop
rules known as laws which apply to everyone regardless of religion, belief, family
background etc. The aim of the law is thus to provide a universal set of rules about
right and wrong, applicable to every member of society. Normally, the law reflects
the moral view held by most members of society (a broad consensus), but it also
has other non-moral goals such as the promotion of trade or the efficient running of
government bodies. Therefore law and ethics are two separate systems that
regulate human behavior, they may be consonant regarding certain issues but may
be in conflict on others.
Remember: what is legal is not necessarily moral, what is moral is
not necessarily legal!
5

Here are some examples where law and ethics do not agree:
o E.g. in a limited company, all debts incurred by a company are the
company's liabilities and not directly the legal liabilities of the
shareholders or of the directors. What this means is that if you lend some
money to a company which later goes bankrupt, you cannot ask the
directors of that company to use their personal wealth (e.g. money in their
savings account) to pay you back.
The purpose of this rule is to encourage entrepreneurship by
limiting the risks that directors take(i.e. the amount of money they
stand to lose).
But is this fair given that directors may be to blame for business
decisions which cause loss to the company? Why should they be
exempted from liability when shareholders and employees suffer
when the company collapses?

From the above discussion we can distill the following points:

-

Personal ethical systems are often subjective

o People often disagree as to what is ethical because our ethical systems
are influenced by our diverse upbringing. The needles on the compasses
are pointing in different directions!
o This results in conflict between ethical systems and may escalate into
open conflict
In order to regulate behavior in a society, we must have a standard that applies
equally to everyone- i.e. the law.
o But the law is only a broad consensus of what society feels is morally
acceptable. Not everyone will agree with the law
o The law also has other non-moral goals which may not be compatible with
ethical systems
o Thus there will be times where an action is legal but immoral and times
where an action is moral but illegal.

So we have two types of conflicts: between different ethical systems and between
ethical systems and other normative systems (systems which influence human
behaviour) e.g. the law. Thus, an ethical system which governs everyone in all
aspects is a myth, conflict and tension between competing ethical systems is the
fact. Bearing this in mind, read the following case studies to see how this tension
occurs in real life.

Negotiating the tension

We have discussed the conflict resulting from the interaction of differing ethical
systems and the potential repercussions of allowing these tensions to escalate. The
6

case studies above have illustrated how common these tensions are and that an
informed, sensitive approach is required to best navigate the competing demands of
these systems.
As observed in Susan Lims case, the law presents one method to resolve these
tensions, by stating a position and expecting compliance with this new position. The
weakness of this method is that it fails to address or resolve the underlying
tensions, but merely to suppress them.
In order to resolve these tensions, dialogue is crucial. We must:
-

Identify and understand the areas of conflict between the competing ethical
systems

Engage in dialogue regarding the competing ethical systems

Be prepared to make compromises on both sides

Propose a solution that is balanced in meeting the demands of the competing

systems

Only by engaging the competing systems in dialogue are we able to adequately

address the demands of each system. At the same time, proponents or supporters
of each system must be prepared to make concessions if a compromise solution is
to be found.

Case Studies of Different Types of Ethical Dilemmas

1. Professional ethics- The case of Dr Susan Lim and the
Brunei Royals
From 2001 to 2007, Dr Lim was the principal physician responsible for treatment of
a member of the Brunei Royal family. By the time the patient died from breast
cancer in June of 2007, Dr Lims clinic had charged the Brunei royals more than
S$40 million in fees, with S$26 million in the last 6 months of the patients life. Dr
Lim was brought before a Disciplinary Committee and the case eventually escalated
to the Court of Appeal, Singapores second highest court.
7

In the Court of Appeal, the lawyer representing Dr Lim asked a question of great
significance- What is an objective ethical limit on the fees a doctor can charge?
Hidden within this question is one even more crucial- can we come up with an
objective ethical limit to the fees a doctor is allowed to charge?
The Court of Appeal says we can, Andrew Phang JA, one of Singapores most senior
judges said that
[T]here arises an ethical obligation on the part of a doctor not to take
advantage of his or her patient (whether monetarily or otherwise), which obligation
operates over and above contractual and market forces. In the circumstances,
excessive overcharging would be a breach of this ethical obligation. There is
therefore an objective ethical limit on medical fees in both private and public
healthcare that operates outside contractual and market force.
Justice Phang further describes the obligation to charge a fair and reasonable fee as
inherent and that Dr Lim was bound by it even though it had not been made
known to her. The Court was satisfied that the invoices were made in an
unsystematic, arbitrary and, ultimately, opportunistic manner.- a nice way of
saying Dr Lim charged whatever she felt like charging. Accordingly, Dr Lim was
found to have breached her ethical obligation as a doctor to charge a fair and
reasonable fee.
Addressing the second issue on whether this ethical obligation to charge a fair and
reasonable fee can be offset by a contractual agreement between doctor and
patient, Justice Phang says that the ethical obligation is of a higher order and thus
prevails over any contractual and commercial obligations.
What can we learn from Dr Lims case?
Firstly, as the court has made clear and as many of us probably feel, professionals
such as doctors have a professional code of ethics which governs their behavior
while on the job. According to the Court, part of this code includes the ethical
obligation to charge a fair and reasonable fee. Thus it is a code of ethics that applies
throughout the medical profession and cross-professionally to cover lawyers as well.
More importantly, it highlights the interaction between law and ethics. Susan Lims
case highlights the tension between the traditional image of doctors and the
modern image of privatized healthcare. Many doctors today work in large
corporations (e.g. Parkway Health Group) and therefore have a legal obligation to
ensure that they work in the interests of these corporations (i.e. to make money!).
-

This is a classic example of the tensions between ethical systems and the law.
Doctors such as Susan Lim have to consider their ethical obligations as doctors
and also their legal obligations as members of a company in order to decide
what the right course of action is. Unfortunately for Dr Lim, she guessed wrong.

Finally, one of the arguments put forward by Dr Lim is that she had not overcharged
because the client was willing and able to pay. This argument was rejected by the
8

court which insisted that the ethical obligations of medical professionals overrode
any commercial or contractual obligations.
-

In the courts conclusion we can see another clash of ethical systems. On one
hand, Justice Phang takes the traditional view that a doctor must put his ethical
obligations first while on the other hand Dr Lim argues that modern medical
practice has evolved into a more commercialized form and thus the oldfashioned ethical obligations are no longer relevant.

What is most interesting is how this conflict was resolved - with the crack of
a gavel. The courts decision on this issue is final and affects not just Dr Lim, but
also affects what all doctors in private practice can charge. Thus we see that the
law has quite a high-handed manner of resolving this conflict: by imposing a set of
rules which if broken, will result in punishment. This is no doubt an efficient method,
but it may not be the most appropriate in solving more sensitive conflicts such as
the issue on Muslims and polygamy as described above in the section on religionbased ethics.

2. Medical Vs Religious Ethics

Jodie and Mary the conjoined twins from Malta
This is a story that rocked the UK more than 10 years ago. Jodie and Mary were twin
sisters, joined at the abdomen from birth. The tricky bit was that while Jodie had a
functioning heart and lungs, Marys vital organs were underdeveloped and she was
dependent on Jodies organs for survival. In other words she was completely reliant
on Jodie for survival. To make matters worse, should the babies be left unseperated,
healthy Jodie would have her strength sapped by her sister, thus leading to the
death of both babies.
The parents of the twins were devout Roman Catholics and believed that they had
to leave the matter in Gods hands; i.e. they did not want to consent to the
operation even if Jodie might have been saved. The operating doctors were
convinced that they could (and should) carry on with the operation and have a good
chance of saving Jodie.
The doctors and parents were in a dilemma, and they decided to pass this dilemma
to some of Englands finest judges to share. They applied to the Court of Appeal for
guidance whether the operation could lawfully be carried out. Three Law Lords (very
high ranking British judges) agonized over the decision, hearing opinions from
doctors, activist groups and even the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. In
the end, the judges decided it was not illegal for the operation to take place. The
twins were separated (against the wishes of the parents) and Mary died shortly
after.

Some of the opinions of the parties involved in the operation:

The Archbishop of Birmingham: "I express dismay at the judgment that has
been reached as it amounts to the direct killing of an innocent person, whose basic
right to life will be denied."
Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain: "Jewish medical ethics suggest that intervening to
separate the twins is both a terrible responsibility and a justified action. Ultimately,
it is better to preserve one life rather than lose two."
A spokesman for the pro-life charity Life: The operation should not have
been allowed and nature should have been allowed to take its natural course. The
courts intention must be to take life although simultaneously saving a life and
thats our objection.
A spokesman for Conjoined Twins International: "Conjoined twins are special
people but if a life can be saved then it is worth it. The court decision to separate
them is the right one but our hearts go out to the family."
Dr Harry Applebaum, one of the doctors who operated on the twins: [W]e
have a person who probably never will function normally. I think most doctors I am
aware of would try to salvage somebody who can have a fairly normal life."
Lord Justice Alan Ward, one of three judges who decided the case: The
pain of being on the sharp horns of this dilemma is excruciating because you do
worry - and you do your best. Whose job is it to decide questions of life of death? the courts. Not a job we ask for, but a job we have to do, most certainty.
Try and identify some of the competing ethical considerations at play here
and appreciate the tension at play between the opposing views. How
would you resolve them? Whose position do you agree with most?

End of story? Not quite

Representing the conclusions of the three Lord Justices, Alan Ward LJ began his
judgment with the statement This court is a court of law, not of morals and
our duty is to apply the relevant principles of law to the situation before
us.
What is Ward LJ saying here? What is he not saying?
Ward LJ seems to be shying away from making a judgment on what is morally
right and wrong. Indeed, if you read his post-trial interview he says the decision
was excruciating and that he had suffered sleepless nights agonizing over the
10

case. Well if hes only applying the law (as all judges are supposed to do), whats so
excruciating about it?
His Lordship knows that although he pretends to be making a legal decision, he is
actually making a moral or ethical decision as well he is telling the parents and the
Roman Catholic Church that their beliefs must take a back seat to the preservation
of life. He is selecting one value system over another.
So like Andrew Phang JA in Singapore, Ward LJ is making a judicial decision with
ethical overtones. Like Phang, he is selecting one value system over another,
whether he likes it or not. But most importantly, like Phang, and indeed like all
judges; beneath the fancy titles, wigs and robes lies a human being, shaped by
his/her own beliefs, culture and experiences and his/her own ethical opinions. All of
these affect the decisions that judges make just as our experiences, value systems,
culture and life experiences affect our ethical viewpoints. Thus, the process of
deciding hard cases like Jodie and Marys is just like any of us deciding between the
quarrelling voices in our heads, only that the decision reached by judges affects
society rather than just themselves.

You may read more on the story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/920487.stm

(follow the links on the right side of the page)

Human Embryonic Stem-cell therapy

Is an intervention strategy that introduces new adult stem cells into damaged tissue
in order to treat disease or injury.
-Has the potential to change the face of human disease and alleviate suffering
-The ability of stem cells to self-renew and give rise to subsequent generations with
variable degrees of differentiation capacities, offers significant potential for
generation of tissues that can potentially replace diseased and damaged areas in
the body, with minimal risk of rejection and side effects.
What are stem cells?
They are non-specialized cells which have the potential to create other types of
specific cells, such as blood-, brain-, tissue-or muscle-cells. Some types of stem cells
may be able to create all other cells in the body. Others have the potential to repair
or replace damaged tissue or cells.
Pros
Stem cell research can potentially help treat a range of medical problems. It could
lead humanity closer to better treatment and possibly cure a number of diseases:
11

a. Parkinsons Disease
b. Alzheimers Disease
c. Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)
d. Birth Defects
e. Spinal Cord Injuries
f. Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
g. Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart
in a heart-transplantation in the future
h. Stem cells may play a major role in cancer and research into stem cells could
allow progress in the fight against cancer
- Should the research be successful in solving the above problems, then we could
potentially expect major cost reductions in medical bills incurred by private
healthcare patients and government healthcare systems.
Cons
-Religious opposition to playing God? Are we usurping the divine prerogative to
create life?
-But if it is a God only power, why have we been able to encroach on it? Is there
really a divine-imposed restriction on human capacity or is it a restriction we have
placed on ourselves?
-Given this, is the playing God argument a real religio-ethical concern or a mere
slogan?
-In the case of hES research, additional concerns include whether the human
embryos used in the research have their autonomy infringed.
-But this supposes that embryos should enjoy the same rights as humans, or
otherwise enjoy sufficient autonomy so as not to be subjected to experimentation
against their will.
-The position varies among different religious groups and even within these groups:
-The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to any premature destruction of the
embryo: The Catholic Catechism states that, "Human life must be respected and
protected absolutely from the moment of conception".
-The Jewish position as stated by the Court of the Chief Rabbi is quite different:

12

In Jewish law neither the foetus nor the pre-implanted embryo is a person; it is,
however, human life and must be accorded the respect due to human life.
Personhood, with its attendant rights and responsibilities begins at birth. Prior to
birth, we have duties to both the embryo and the foetus, but these may, in certain
circumstances, be overridden by other duties, namely those we owe to persons
The Anglican Church is internally divided about this issue with official positions
varying from country to country.
Additional: With the advent of the iPS method which allows scientists to revert adult
stem cells to their pluripotent form has reduced the need to rely solely on
Embryonic stem cells.
-What this means is that we are no longer reliant on human embryos for a source of
undifferentiated stem cells. Therefore resolving the ethical concerns we have noted
above.
-However, the new method is not perfect and there are still difficulties producing
good yields through the iPS method. Therefore ES stem cells may still be viable until
a more refined method is developed

3. Francois Hollandes not-so-scandalous affair & Code of

Conduct of Singaporean Leaders
Francois Hollande, President of France has been involved in an affair with actress
Julie Gayet who he has been seeing behind the First Ladys back. Despite this
scandal, which in other countries might have affected his approval rating, Hollande
actually saw his popularity rating improve from 26% to 31% after the affair was
made public. In a poll by the Institut franais d'opinion publique (IFOP),it is revealed
that only 47% of French people felt that infidelity was morally unacceptable,
compared to 55 of the British, 60 per cent of Germans, 64 per cent of Spanish, 65
per cent of Italians and 84 per cent of Americans.
Furthermore, a survey of French voters revealed that 80% consider the matter a
private affair. French voters are far more concerned about the state of the French
economy. French journalist and political commentator Agns Poirier:
"This is trivia, because its gossip, it's not news, because it's not something
we should pay any attention (to). A lot of people are interested in the story,
obviously, but we know we 'shouldn't be'."
Cross-reference similar scandals which have affected Singapore politicians Michael
Palmer and Yaw Shin Leongs. Michael Palmers scandal came to light in December
2012 after his text messages to Laura Ong, a constituency director at Pasir Ris West
Constituency Office were published in a leak to The New Paper. Palmers resignation
13

from the PAP was swiftly approved by PM Lee who noted in a letter replying to
Palmers resignation:
[I]t is necessary that all PAP MPs and advisers to grassroots organisations
uphold the highest standards of personal conduct, especially in dealing with
constituents, grassroots activists and staff, and that the party be seen to
hold its MPs and advisers to these standards.
Earlier in Feb 2012, then WP MP and treasurer Yaw Shin Leong was accused of
having an affair with a fellow party colleague and another lady assisting him with
translation work. In a statement following his dismissal, the WP released a
statement:
Shin Leong has been accused of several indiscretions in his private life. By
continuing not to account to the Party and the people, especially the
residents of Hougang, he has broken the faith, trust and expectations of the
Party and People.

The case studies above demonstrate the difference in ethical perspectives among
the majority of the French population and the majority of the Singaporean
population. They also demonstrate that politicians in most countries are subject to a
certain code of conduct and that having an affair is contrary to that code of
conduct.
Think about the following questions and why we apply different standards to
different people and whether we are justified in doing so. There is no need to write
an entire essay, just scribble your thoughts down in point form.
a) Should politicians have to live up to certain standards of morality
like doctors do? Why? If a politician is competent in his public
duties, does it matter what he does in private?
b) Imagine you and your classmates were part of a committee which
would decide Hollandes political fate after his affair with Ms Gayet.
What would you decide and why? Briefly give reasons for your
decision.
c) Would your answer change if Mr Hollande was not the President of
France but instead the millionaire owner of the popular French Fast
Food chain: Parisian Fried Puffin?

14

d) Would your answer in c) change if businessman Hollande was a local

celebrity due to his 7pm talkshow which is immensely popular with
middle-aged conservative viewers.

4. Photographers Ethics
Photoediting- fuzzy and gray areas

15

On 23rd Jan 2014, the Guardian reported that the news agency Associated Press (AP)
declared that it was severing all ties with Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist
Narciso Contreras. This decision was reached on the basis that the above photo
taken by Contreras while covering the conflict in Syria had been digitally altered to
remove the camera in the left foreground.

Digital alteration of pictures by photojournalists is not a new phenomenon:

16

In the above set of photos, photojouirnalist Brian Walski merged the first 2 images
to portray a more dramatic scene of a British soldier instructing civilians in Iraq to
take cover from an incoming Iraqi Army bombardment. Upon discovery of the
alteration, Walski was similarly dismissed by Time magazine.
AP subsequently released a statement clarifying its guidelines on photoediting,
indicating that altering the background lighting to replicate scenes was acceptable
while cloning or removing elements of the pictures were not. Newspapers such as
the Guardian also impose similar standards on their journalists.

What can we learn from these cases?

While it may seem that AP is clarifying its position regarding photoediting and laying
down a code of photographers ethics, this case demonstrates how difficult it is for
such a code to be comprehensive in all situations. There will be areas in which
present ethical systems cannot adequately provide for, thus forming ethical gray
areas where what is ethically acceptable and what is not is highly unclear.

17

Consider the following scenario:

Suppose you were the editor of an international newspaper with a reputation for
giving its readers an immersive, as-it-happened insight into breaking news. You
have learnt that an oil tanker off the coast of Timbaktu has exploded in a giant
fireball after being attacked by pirates in the early hours of the morning.
Unfortunately, your cameraman arrived on the scene at daybreak and was only able
to capture pictures against the bright morning sky.
The Chief Editor has instructed you that this story would be front page news and a
suitably dramatic picture was needed. In order to maximize the impact of the story,
the cameraman proposes that he alter the background lighting to that of a night sky
so the fireball would be much more striking. Your photographer reminds you that the
established rules among photographic agencies only cover cloning over
photographs and does not prohibit adjusting the lighting. To compound your
difficulties, the Chief Editor has sent a follow-up email informing you that the next
days story will be crucial to raising the sales of your newspaper which has been
selling poorly and is in danger of bankruptcy.
Would you allow the picture to be edited? (Remember that editing the lighting is
acceptable according to APs guidelines, but do you think it is ethical?) Why?

Can you think of other examples whereby the media might conflict
with other rights?

5. Is the pursuit of Nuclear Power ethically feasible?

Consider the harm principle , utilitarianism and other relevant
seminal theories in examining this claim.
A critical evaluation of various pros and cons of nuclear power which will help you
figure out whether this alternative source of energy is actually as efficient as it is
believed to be or not.
Owing to its various advantages, nuclear power has gained wide popularity as one
of the most efficient alternative energy sources in the world. As of 2008, it
constituted approximately 15 percent of the power production worldwide. In France,
around 77 percent of the total electricity is derived from nuclear energy. In the
United States, it constitutes approximately 20 percent of the total electricity
consumption.

18

An Overview
Nuclear power is produced in controlled environment by heating water to such an
extent that it becomes steam and rotates the turbines to produce power. Nuclear
power plants are fueled by radioactive elements, such as enriched uranium,
plutonium or thorium. These elements are placed in the nuclear reactors, wherein
each atom is allowed to split apart. This splitting, technically referred to as 'nuclear
fission', releases energy in vast amounts. This energy is in turn used to heat water,
in order to convert it to steam. The steam rotates the turbines in the plant, which in
turn forces the coils of wire to interact with a magnetic field and produces
electricity.
Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Like any other source of energy, even nuclear energy has its share of advantages
and disadvantages. As it is not dependent on fossil fuels, the amount of pollution is
relatively less, but at the same time any damage or malfunctioning in the plant can
trigger hazardous effects on the surroundings.
Pros
Not being dependent on fossil fuels is perhaps the biggest advantage of nuclear
power. Power plants which burn coal are highly polluting, which makes it hazardous
for the environment. More importantly, the fuel used is much more efficient and
found in abundance. Large reserves of uranium are spread in many parts of the
world. Scientific estimates suggest that the rate at which the fossil fuel are being
used today, their reserves are bound to become empty by the end of this century.
More importantly, new breeder reactors have the capacity of producing much more
fuel than what they use. Nuclear power is the best example of efficient power
generation owing the fact that the amount of fuel needed is very less and power
generated is immense. Owing to these threats such as natural calamities, strikes,
etc. don't affect nuclear energy generation. Nuclear reactors are built taking various
precautions so as to avoid the chances of any accidents.
Cons
Everything about nuclear energy is not very pleasant though, and most of its
drawbacks are related to safety measures. Loss of coolant water in the reactor can
lead to overheating and eventually trigger meltdown. This can lead to fuel seepage
in the ground, thus triggering disastrous effect on the surroundings. The byproducts
of this process remain radioactive for thousands of years and cause radiation
harmful for living beings. These harmful radiations can lead to disorders such as
cancer, radiation sickness and genetic mutation. Although the chances are rare, a
possible nuclear power disaster can create a havoc in miles, in area around the
plant. There have been some such examples in the history, the Chernobyl Tragedy
19

and the Three Mile Island are best examples of tragedy that can happen. These
power plants also face a possible threat from terrorist activities. Other than these
disadvantages, international relationships also play a major role in nuclear power
generation.

A Few More Interesting Facts....

A single ton of uranium produces more energy than a million tons of coal. Nuclear
energy was discovered by a French physicist - Henri Becquerel, in 1896. There are
104 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. An average individual in
the United States absorbs 360 milligrams of radiation every year. France - the leader
in nuclear energy development - even exports this electricity for profit. Though
there are several benefits of nuclear power, we are definitely not in a position to go
through another Chernobyl; and we need to take this point into consideration before
we come to any conclusion. It is important to deal with this issue, if we are to
consider it as a replacement for fossil fuels.
Questions to Ponder
1. What is the key benefit of using nuclear power?
2. What are some of the considerations that need to be taken into account of when
using nuclear power?
3. Is the prospect of using nuclear power as a wonder fuel to meet the worlds
growing energy demands feasible and sustainable in the long run?
4. How has science and technology facilitated the use of other weapons of mass
destruction?
5. What are some of the ethical dilemmas caused by the pursuit of nuclear energy?
6. What is the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons? Should the
use of nuclear
weapons be abolished? What are some ethical dilemmas associated with the use
of nuclear weapons?

20

6. State Intervention in Singapore (What are the ethical

dilemmas posed here?)

Besides the Singapore governments management of ethics and morality in aspects

such as medical practices, the media and family arrangements, state intervention
extends into other aspects of the lives of Singaporeans such as the regulations
imposed on opposition politics, the mass media and civil society. This is so much so
political observers have labeled the country a nanny state. In response, Senior
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the architect of the modern Singapore, commented
"If Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one.

Fact Sheet
Singapore has developed from a South East Asian backwater into one of the most
powerful economies of the developed world.
According to the World
Competitiveness Yearbook 2004, Singapores overall ranking was second out of sixty
economies in a survey performed by the Institute for Management Development.
This is a far cry from the newly-independent Singapores desperate situation when
the Malaysian Confederation dissolved in 1965. A tiny, resource-scarce country,
Singapores leaders had to devise a strategy for political, social and economic
survival. Since its beginnings to the present, Singapores development strategies
have been characterised by crisis-oriented state and social engineering.
Governance and leadership in Singapore tend to be characterised by
conservatism, patriarchal condescension and deliberate handholding, earning
for itself the derisive reputation of nanny state.
Strong/ Paternal political presence: The PAP government and its agenda are virtually
omnipresent (and omnipotent?) in every arena of political engagement.
Its
presence is felt not only in where the government chooses to intervene but how it
does so almost as a father in always having the loudest voice and the final say. In
comparison, both political opposition and civic society appear infantilised in our
disempowerment.
While political activity and change is said to be non-existent in Singapore, due to
the dominance of the Peoples Action Party (PAP), which has been in power for 44
years, there has been a steady increase in the activities of the Opposition. The
Opposition accounted for about 32% of the votes in the 2006 General Elections,
while the PAP saw its firm grip on power loosen, with a victory of only 66.6%.
The PAP does not equate with the Government of Singapore. Mr. Low Thia Khiang of
the Workers Party and Mr Chiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Alliance, are
elected members of government and hold Member of Parliament (MP) seats. Within
21

Parliament, where issues of concern are debated, there are Non-Constituency

Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament who represent
independent views within the government structure.
Weak political opposition: The PAP government has used this political advantage
well, during elections and membership recruitment drives. Potentially messy or
embarrassing situations have been solved quickly and efficiently by taking legal
action against the parties involved (civil suits filed against WPs J. B. Jeyaratnam in
1988 and 2001; against SDPs Chee Soon Juan in 1999 and 2001).
Weak civil society + few viable alternative viewpoints: Singaporeans are generally
apathetic towards partisan politics or, indeed, in virtually any form of political
involvement. Civil society in Singapore has been dogged consistently by its failure
to generate sufficient momentum or even support/ participation. Examples include
the RoundTable, now dissolved, and the Speakers Corner, supposedly a public
domain advocating the practice of free speech but bound with ceaseless red tape
and surveillance. More recently, undergraduate Jamie Hans conduct and pointed
remarks at MM Lee Kuan Yew during a dialogue session at NUS in themselves
nothing outstandingly controversial received significant (perhaps excessive?)
attention from the media.
This exaggerated reaction to one undergraduate
highlights the feeble state of civil society in Singapore today; Jamies own disclaimer
that he does not intend to participate in Singapore politics further proves the point
of Singaporeans general passivity and indifference to, and/or distrust of, political
engagement.
State control of media: The PAP government controls most local media through its
close ties with Singapore Press Holdings and state ownership of most broadcast
media. Strict press licensing requirements generally deter the establishment of
independent newspapers; cable television is a state monopoly. Motivation for state
control of media is best summed up in this statement: Freedom of the press,
freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of
Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government (Then-PM Lee
KY at Helsinki, 1971).
Legislative control: On several occasions, the government has banned, restricted
and/or regulated that which was perceived as non-mainstream and therefore
wrong. Examples include the ban on long hair for men (1970s-1980s), the ban on
chewing gum (1990s-present, although now partially lifted) and various instances of
media censorship (particularly of movies), which have been criticised for being
inconsistent with the governments proclaimed objective of moving towards a
progressive society.
Campaigns (and other communications): State campaigns, rather than public
forums and/or grassroots participation, indicate the type of effective (mostly topdown) communication between the state and the public. Memorable instances
include: Flush Lavatories Thoroughly, Be Kind, Be Courteous, Speak Mandarin, Dont
Spit, Dont Litter, Dont Drink and Drive, Dont Take Drugs, Stop Smoking, Stop At
Two, Have Two Or More (If You Can Afford)

22

Intervention in matters of personal choice: Top-down communication between the

government and the people extends to lifestyle choices as well. This is most clearly
reflected in the governments family planning campaigns, indicating their concern
over our waning population. Neither are we exempt from paternal patronage and
the occasional reprimand. During the Budget Debate 2004, MP (Aljunied GRC) Dr
Ong Seh Hong lambasted singles for being irresponsible, insisting that procreation
is not only the duty of everyone, but also the responsibility of every citizen towards
his family, parents, society and country. Recently, Senior Minister of State for
Health Dr Balaji Sadasivan lamented the epidemic of rising AIDS infections and
blamed homosexuals/ homosexual activity eg the annual Nation parties for seeding
the infection in the local community.
Problems/ Challenges
Attempts at change: However, recent government decisions seem to support the
view that perhaps Singapore is ready for a greater degree of maturity and
participation in decision making. For instance, a more significant element of
government critique is apparent in news media reports and internet forums,
ministers hold more open dialogue sessions with their constituents, bar-top dancing
is now allowed at licensed establishment, and the government has indicated a less
intolerant approach towards employing homosexuals in the civil service. However, it
remains questionable as to whether such concessions are merely token, bread-andcircuses gestures of a government not willing to give up its power. It is highly
debatable that Singaporeans are allowed a greater and more effective say in
important decision-making processes whether they are consulted during this
process, or whether they are simply handed down preformed decisions by the
authorities.
A self-fulfilling prophecy: A vicious cycle also perpetuates the problem of
Singaporeans passivity and general apathy to social and political issues. It can be
argued that overall, Singapores secure(d) nursery environment contributes largely
to a culture of ignorance, indifference, fear and over-reliance on the government.
This culture in turn justifies the existence and perpetuation of a closed sociopolitical climate, effectively a nanny state.
An increasingly educated populace (from 89% in 1990 to 95% in 2000) would mean
that citizens are more aware of their own needs, rights and privileges in voting for a
government of their choice.
With globalisation, Singaporeans are exposed to a wider range of ideas and a
greater sense of freedom that may not be reflected in Singapores political
environment, given that freedom of speech and behaviour are closely and keenly
monitored which makes for a stifling and oppressive political atmosphere.
The use of the Internet, especially blogs and streaming websites like Youtube.com
as well as podcasts have allowed Singaporeans to exchange and air their views on
many issues, especially politics in Singapore.
More and more Singaporeans are actively involved in grassroots organisations such
as the Peoples Association and the PAP Youth Wing.

23

Younger contenders in the elections (especially the high-profile 2006 General

Elections).
Greater responsible public debate through mainstream channels and media, like
newspaper forums.
Conflict with Key Stakeholders
Civil Society
Compared to the governments public castigation of Singaporean writer Catherine
Lim for commenting on the leadership of the Peoples Action Party (PAP) in an article
titled The PAP and the People A Great Affective Divide in 1994, there appears to
be a widening of out-of-bound markers in recent years from the debate on Section
377A of the Penal Code (which criminalises homosexual acts), to campaigns for
foreign worker rights and easing of rules on Speakers Corner at Hong Lim Park.
Notably, in the Aware saga, the government largely stayed out of the picture even
when taboo topics such as homosexuality and religion took centre stage.
Yet, legislation like the recently enacted Public Order Act (an act to broaden police
powers to stop any public activity held without permission that is viewed to
compromise public order) is a reminder that the government is still prepared to take
pre-emptive action to step in and circumvent civil action.

Opposition Politics
Opposition parties continue to face harsh action taken by the ruling party including
accusations of gerrymandering and the filing of civil suits against the opposition for
libel or slander.
In a case involving the J. B. Jeyaretnam, he lost a series of suits to members of the
PAP and was declared bankrupt in 2001, effectively disqualifying him from
participating in future elections. Similar civil suits have been filed against Chee
Soon Juan, leader of the Singapore Democratic Party.
In 2008, Chee Soon Juan along with his sister Chee Siok Chin were again sentenced
to jail for testimony they provided in court. Both have been made bankrupt and are
prohibited from leaving the country. In 2005, filmmaker Martyn See shot a
documentary on Chee called "Singapore Rebel" and was threatened with a lawsuit
for making a "politically partisan" film, which is illegal in Singapore.

Mass Media and The Public

The pervasiveness of the Internet and the immediacy of the medium allow the cyber
community to react faster than traditional media, stirring up debate in blogs and
forums, resulting in an increasingly vibrant socio-political blogosphere.
24

Human Rights Activists/Organisations

International human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human
Rights watch acknowledge that whilst the government generally respects the
human rights of its citizens, it has broad powers to limit citizens' rights and to inhibit
political opposition. Freedom in the World 2006 ranked Singapore 5 out of 7 for
political freedom, and 4 out of 7 for civil liberties (where 1 is the most free), with an
overall ranking of "partly free".

25