kierap-world - Tumblr blog

[kierap-world]

Your Turn

Hey guys, I’m back with another post!

In today’s post I will be talking which ethical theory I personally believe is the best in regards to media consumption and for mass population!

In regards to mass population and media consumption, I would have to say the ethical theory of Contractarianism!

For more information, here’s my previous post explaining a comparison and contrast to this theory to a popular film: https://kierap-world.tumblr.com/post/188873982744/contractarianism-live-from-baghdad

However, I’ll sum it up for readers who haven’t read it yet! Basically, it’s an ethical theory based on contracts and agreements by groups of people. The contracts in itself are meant to be rational, free, and to bring peace and value. It is also meant to be just, the theory was created by Thomas Hobbes.

The reason why I believe this ethical theory greatly aligns with media is because everyone has a contract! Journalists, celebrities, jobs, and society, they are laws to follow, rules, and choices to make. Overall, our society is meant to have rules to be orderly. I believe that media in general has a “contract” because they are all of these agreements in terms of media to present the truth and news to a general audience!

Although some news don’t bring peace and value but the harsh realities of the world, I think obtaining the media is what really aligns this theory. In other words, journalists and PRs are meant to always present the truth, never to be prejudice or to add their personal thoughts on the society, and they have agreements with the boss to bring in the story.

Therefore, I believe the media is built on those types of contracts, we agree that we need to show the truth and be truthful as possible. Although many news companies and media may misconfigure the truth, the media’s general goal is to show the public what’s happening throughout the world.

Here’s an example of the code of ethics for journalist! One common ethical dilemma is terms of the words “seek truth and report it” Although, journalists are required to do this, they are moments where journalists have to withhold some truth. For example, if a journalist were reporting a story on rape or a criminal, the victims would not be named. They are several arguments on if this is moral or not but doing so prevents the victims from being harmed. 

Overall, I agree with these following statements! I believe that as a writer and an aspiring journalist major, I have a responsibility of following this “contract” or these code of ethics whenever I write my blogs, posts or articles. It’s always important to seek the truth, be just, and to write to inform.

[kierap-world]

Media Ethics for Liberation

 Hi everyone, I’m back with a new post!

Today, I’ll be talking about my views on media’s views and responsibility on social justice, Dussel’s ideas, and an example of “liberation” in journalism.

Before I dive in Dussel’s ideas and the liberation of journalism, I’m going to be discussing my viewpoints on media and its relationship to social justice. 

So here’s what I think!

I think we are in a generation where they are hate crimes happening left from right, poverty, and homelessness issues throughout our environment! I think it’s important, as a journalism major myself to spread truth and awareness about the things that’s happening in the world!

Of course, hate crimes can be sensitive topics and they are many people who don’t want to talk about poverty or homelessness but media has a responsibility to be informative our the realities of the world so people can be aware! I also think that social issue and change is a topic that needs to be discussed throughout media without bias. 

There have been times where media have covered hate crimes and have shown terrible pictures of people of color yet they are victims. And when it comes to police officer and p.o.c shootings, a lot of people defend these police officers even though they are in the wrong. 

Here are some examples of the injustice towards hate crimes:

Now that we have talked about my viewpoints on media’s interaction with social injustice, let’s move on Dussel’s ideas. 

After reading his Ethics of Liberation, I agree with his viewpoint! Dussel talked about how there’s been an exclusion of the minorities throughout history and western traditions and how the majority has been praised!

Overall, I believe that the media has an ethical responsibility to talk and spread awareness for all people!

[kierap-world]

Virtue Theory & Deadline USA

Hi guys, I’m back!

Today, I’m going to be talking about the philosophical Virtue Theory created by Aristotle and how it relates to the film “Deadline USA.” So without further ado, let’s get started!

To start off, what’s virtue theory?

It’s simple! According to Aristotle it means to be virtuous, a good person who makes great decisions! Unlike the other philosophical theories, this one doesn’t come with a set of rules, it focuses more one’s character and self! In other words, the person must choose to be a great person in order for this theory to flourish. This is called proper functioning when a human chooses to live a happy and fertile life!

Furthermore, in order to obtain virtue, it is important to learn from others and according to this theory, a person would eventually obtain virtues themselves! This theory is also not about showing off, it talks about virtue being a certain middle between cowardice and recklessness. It is important to know your strengths and weakness, it’s important to do things the right way instead of being too prideful of cowardly. Good examples of this are telling hard truths gracefully, constructive criticism, and getting help in situations when you can’t handle on your own!

Overall, this theory creates human flourishing and Aristotle believe it was the key to living a successful life!

Okay, now that you know more about the virtue theory, let’s move on to the film!

The film Deadline USA is basically about a NY times newspaper called “The Day” and how it’s in trouble! Hutcheson, the editor ends up having to cover up a big scoop that could potentially save their paper! The case involved the murder of a young woman which involved a man named Reinzi. When Hutcheson learns that the young woman Bessie who died was Reinzi’s mistress, he tries to get information from the mistress’ brother. However, the thugs discover the plan and kill the brother to prevent this from happening. 

However, Bessie’s mother later saves the paper herself by turning in Bessie’s diary and giving the company the cash ignorning Reinzi’s threats. Before Bessie’s mother was ever involved, they were at risk out of going out of business! 

So what are my final thoughts?

Overall, I think that this movie does a good example of showing the consequences of not following the virtue theory versus following it correctly. Hutcheson thought his plan was well thought enough for him to safely interview Bessie’s brother and get the latest scoop but he overestimated himself. Therefore, he suffered a consequence. 

However, Bessie’s mother correctly showed virtue because she bravely presented the company what she have already obtained! Therefore, I think it’s interesting how this movie actually did a great job at showing what could happen if you have too much confidence versus having the right amount of virtue! 

What do you guys think?

[kierap-world]

More DIY Code of Ethics - Diversity & Hate Speech

Hi guys!  I’m back with another post :)

Today I’m going to be talking about the ethics of journalisms pertaining to the topics of diversity and hate speech!

According to the code of ethics pertaining to diversity, “News organizations should seek out the perspectives of urban and rural residents, religious believers and atheists, political conservatives and liberals.” In other words, being a journalist itself should be diverse. As a journalist it’s literally your job to do lots of coverage on what happens throughout the world and our community as a whole.

Therefore as a wannabe journalist myself, I won’t just cover stories that are in my comfort zone. I will cover all stories that cause me to step out of my range and to give more knowledge on a different culture. For example, I would gladly cover news stories pertaining muslim discrimination in the United States. It is also important for the news staff to be diverse as possible to avoid any ignorance or biases. 

Now that we’ve covered the topic of diversity, let’s move on to hate speech!

According to the ethics of journalism, hate speech is “are by their nature offensive. But sometimes they make legitimate news. Where’s the line on what we should write about and photograph?” 

In other words, although hate speech may be triggering and offensive, it’s our job as journalists to not just to be storytellers but to also be honest about what’s happening in the world. Journalists aren’t allowed to censor and have to write hate speech and the events.

The good thing about writing hate speech is that you are informing the audience of what’s happening in our society. When hate crimes happen, we usually look to news to learn more about what’s happening. Although hate speech can be triggering, it’s more important for people to be aware so others can known about the tragedies that happen in the world. Not only is this informative but this can teach the public about ignorance and what to avoid when talking to minorities. 

Overall, I really agree with the journalism ethics and I believe if journalists followed these ethics, they would be able to do a lot of good things for the world!

[kierap-world]

Response to Contractarianism

I agree with your outlook on contractarianism it seems like implicit contracts and explicit contracts are very important especially in the movie live from baghdad. - Braden Granard

[kierap-world]

Contractarianism & “Live from Baghdad”

 Hello guys, welcome to my newest post! 

Today, I’m going to be talking about the ethical theory Contractarianism created by Thomas Hobbs and how it applies to the 2002 film “Live from Baghdad.” Then, I’ll give you my final thoughts on the theory in relations to the film itself!

Now let’s get started!

So what is Contractarianism? 

According to Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Contractarianism are agreements that are rational and free. Unlike the previous ethical theory, I’ve summed up for you guys, morality is based on what we could create. 

In other words, to be moral they are more benefits found in cooperating than not cooperating. If we were to have no rules, it may seem fun at first but in reality, it’s not! A great example of why Contractarianism is beneficial is the movie Purge! If we didn’t have rules and we didn’t make agreements to follow a free society, the world would be chaotic!

One example of how agreements can work after trading a bit of your freedom to be better put off. For example, it’s to drink and socialize but doing this plus driving is illegal. Although many people think that a shot is okay, one can never be too sure. And if you get stopped by the police even if there wasn’t any accident or harm, it’s better than safe sorry!

Although this ethical theory is based on agreements not all agreements apply! In order to for to follow the theory, the agreements have to be fair and just for all people. Therefore any acts of prejudice would not count. It is also important to remember that this theory causes implicit contracts. This just means that not everyone has agreed to law but has to for the safety of others and to have a smooth society. 

So now that we know that this theory means, let’s shift gears and talk about the film “Live from Baghdad”

“Live from Baghdad” is a 2002 television movie that was produced by HBO. It was about a CNN producer named Robert Weiner and his fellow Colleague Helena Carter travel to the Iraqi Capital to cover the gulf war.

Throughout the film, Weiner befriends Al Hadithi, the iraqi minister of information who helps get informations about the war and how a british boy was being held Saddam Hussein.

I think this film is an example of what could happen if Contractarianism is being taken advantage of. Although Al Hadithi helps Weiner with coverage of what was truly happening, their contract wasn’t built on a fair and just movement. When they bombings do actually happen, Al Hadithi tried to get Weiner to stop filming and covering the topic which also breaches their contract. 

Therefore, I believe this is another theory that can be taken advantage of especially in the journalism industry. It is hard to get a mutual agreement from the outside who may want you to know their secrets but it’s important to always tell the truth and inform the public on what’s happening in the world. Therefore, I conclude that this theory sounds nice but it doesn’t seem as it would truly work in the journalism world. 

[kierap-world]

Looking at News Through Five Fault Lines

,Hey guys, long time no see! 

Sorry this post is late but I’m back and ready to post!

Today, I’m going to be talking about the recent celebrity news story involving a mashup between Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez going viral! I am then going to analyze the article on how it fits the Fault Lines Critique of journalism!

Before we dive in, you’re probably wondering what fault lines are!

Fault Lines are great way of analyzing news stories! With fault lines, it’s an easy way to pick out what the article’s general audience is pieced in regards to race, gender, class, and etc. It also is a great way of checking to see how these articles benefit our community and if the coverage is accurate!

Now that I’ve explained what Fault Lines, let’s dive into the actual story!

So in the article, the writer Alyssa Bailey talks about Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber’s past. These two celebrities are well known in the media for their up and down relationship! Bailey then goes to explain that although their relationship is over, an DJ named AndyWu published a mashup of “Justin Bieber - Sorry and Selena Gomez - Lose You to Love Me.” 

Here is the mashup if you have a quick listen!

Bailey then goes on to say that the mashup was gone viral and at the time had over “678,000″ views but now it’s about to 2 million!

I think Bailey did a great job at attracting Selena Gomez fans here and using their breakup to a certain advantage. According to the fault lines, the way she wrote her piece attracted fans by showing how the mashup is gaining popularity despite their break up. Bailey then adds at the end of the article about how a source claims that Justin Bieber is trying to avoid giving a reaction from Selena Gomez’s songs. Therefore it almost seems as if Bailey is indirectly implying that despite Justin Bieber not having a reaction, their history is always going to be in the news.

And that’s what I think personally is the biggest prize of fame which is privacy! Overall, I think Bailey targeted towards young adults and teenagers who grew up loving Jelena and tried to spread awareness that their history is still relevant. I feel as if people who want to move on from this relationship or this history in the past will not be attracted to this article. I personally think it would have been better to word the story in a way where they clarify Andy Wu’s mashup is a way of honoring their past and putting an end to it instead of the “scandalous” idea that Justin Bieber is trying his best to not react at all.

What do you guys think?

[kierap-world]

Utilitarianism and Reportero

Hey guys, I’m back with a new post!

Sorry it’s a bit late, I’m currently getting over a cold but I’m feeling better and I’m ready now to share my post with you all! 

Today, we’re about going to be talking about the philosophical theory of utilitarianism and how it’s being applied to the documentary “Reportero”! I’ll also finish up the post by giving my initial thoughts on the documentary itself and this theory in general, so let’s get started!

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that was created by 18th century philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The theory in itself focuses on how actions should be measured in terms of happiness or the pleasure they produce. For example, we should all study because in rewards to that, we will get good grades. This is pleasing for us because it looks good on our transcript and this would benefit our education. 

However, what’s really interesting about this theory is that it’s a hedonistic moral theory. What this means is that we should pursue happiness to avoid pain but we should also be willing to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good. This leads the principle of utility. This means that we should always produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

In other words, this theory does justify sacrifice and killing if it were to save a mass number of people. For example, if a murderer made you kill one sibling to save the rest of them, doing this aligns with the theory because you are sacrificing one person for the greatest number of people which would be the rest of the family in this case. 

This example of utilitarianism is called Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism which focuses on if this would be beneficial in the long term. In other words, would sacrificing one sibling to save your family be for their greater good in the future? 

It sounds pretty dark but this theory was all about being able to put your own needs before others to save a bigger amount of people. 

Now let’s see how this theory correlates with the documentary Reportero!

So this documentary Reportero was by Bernado Ruiz and it focused on a veteran reporter and a colleague who challenged the drug cartels and corrupted officials during a wave of violence against journalists in Mexico. 

So what happened in the film is that it focused on the mexican newspaper Zeta and despite the dangers of talking and releasing information about the corrupted officials and drug cartels, the newspaper took a stand and published news about the subject anyway. This was a risky move because many of these people were corrupted and were part of these drugs cartels could go after the journalists and the paper. However, they believe it was for the greater good of the public to know these things and they did this by risking their own lives. 

This definitely fit theory of utilitarianism because these reporters and journalists were able to risk their lives to protect the public by informing them of what’s actually happening around them.

Overall, I think it was a great thing that Zeta did and they fact that many journalists risked their lives to save others is very heroic. However, this theory to me will always be controversial. 

In some aspects like this documentary, it does a great purpose and a good deed but if these corrupted officials were to make the journalists kill one member of their family to save the general public, that’s when this theory to me gets questionable. Although, it’s great to make sacrifices and to put other people’s needs before your own, it doesn’t sit well with me that this may lead to killings of innocent people to die. 

Overall, this is a great theory but in my opinion, it can only go so far!

[kierap-world]

Kant, Categorical Imperatives

Hello guys, I’m back with a new post! 

Today I will be explaining Kant’s ethical theory on Categorical Imperatives and comparing it to the 2004 documentary titled “Control Room.”

So first of all, who is Kant? 

Kant is a philosopher who believe that morality and religion should be kept apart.

 He believed that morality came from our individual selves instead of a higher power. It also didn’t matter if one was religious or not, according to Kant, humans were meant to be moral. (Moreover he argued not to rely on religion specifically because he believed we had the intellect to figure out morality on our own)

He titled his ethical theory as “Categorical Imperatives” and means that they were commands people must follow regardless one’s desires. For example, although teenagers may not like school, they are obligated to go to school until they can legally drop out. 

His theory had two popular formulas and they can be summarized as:

1) Act and follow the rules in all similar situations. 

2) Treat humans equal and do not manipulate others. 

An example of the first formula is to always be truthful at all times even if you or someone else were in danger. If someone threatened to kill your family if you didn’t get him money, you would be responsible for their deaths if you lied about not having money at all, according to Kant’s rules on this formula.

An example of the second formula is to treat people equally. If you treated someone poorly just to gain the popularity or attention from a widespread audience, this is a violation of Kant’s ethics to his second formula. 

Okay now that I have explained everything, let’s compare this theory to the “Control Room” 

The documentary film is about the news network Al Jazeera and its relations to the US Central Command, news organizations, and the invasion of Iraq. 

Throughout the film, the history of Al Jazeera was pretty unclear. On one hand, Muhammad al-Sahhaf argued that the network was transmitting american propaganda focusing on American tanks and Iraqi Casualties. Fox News also chose to leave out some material as well and didn’t effectively explain both sides of the invasion. 

Even based on this takeaway of the film so far, the film was already violated Kant’s ethics. I believe this would resonate with formula 2. According to Kant, humans shouldn’t manipulated. According to Al Jazeera’s producer Samir Khader, it was perceived that because they believed their culture was so far behind from others. However, they didn’t hide some things from the media to execute because it makes the audience assume a negative connotation of the network. It would have better for both news outlets to tell the truth and leave it up for humanity to decide, that would have followed Kant’s ethical theory. 

Touching up on these points, this film showed lots of bias which also violates the first formula. They didn’t show the destruction of iraqi military resources. As journalists, they are meant to always be truthful and inform the audience about what’s happening in the world. However, this was not executed throughout the documentary and just focused on painting America in a positive light despite this be war front. 

All in all, this film in my opinion didn’t follow the Categorical Imperatives at all. According to Kant, it’s important to be truthful no matter what negative consequences are. As journalists and news network, they had an opportunity to do so in the films but they didn’t jump on that chance.

[kierap-world]

DIY Code of Ethics

 Hello guys, I’m back with another post! Today I’m going to be talking about the ethics of journalism!

Journalism ethics is crucial, for any journalist or reporters, making sure you report issues with the right and accurate information is mandatory! Not only will you do a good job with reporting an issue but you won’t get in trouble for the work you created. 

However, what’s interesting about ethics is as humans, we all have our own take on what makes something ethical or not. If you were to be a journalist for your career, a company that you may work for may differ than CNN or LA Times. 

One example can be bomb threats. According to ethics.journalists.org, “Some news organizations consider any such threat in their community to be news...Other journalists are warier about reporting bomb threats, especially if there’s no particular reason to think the threat is real.”

In other words, some journalists are required to write stories about bomb threats because the company sees as a crucial warning for to the public to be aware of while some companies may find this not credible. 

This also goes for news sites as a whole. 

According to Michael Cieply, “it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many...Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper.”

In other words, New York Times strives to be a global, self conscious and aware publication whereas LA Times likes to focus on current events that tend to be local. Overall, because news sites are so unique and different, they demonstrate different ethics and approaches to appeal the public’s eye. 

Although many news sites love to do things differently, it’s important to remember that generally all news sites and companies use the same code of ethics. Here’s a video that displays good examples of this!

Although all journalists tend to follow these rules, many news sites have evolved in order to relate to the audience. One example of this could CNN which holds democratic debates in order to appeal to democrats or LA Times which has an “opinion” section on their website responding to popular news coverage that many LA residents have watched and viewed. 

[kierap-world]

I agree that natural laws were misused when it come to natural laws against the black press.

[kierap-world]

Natural Law & the “Black Press: Soldiers Without Swords”

Hello guys! Today I’m going to be talking about the Natural Law Theory and how it relates to award-winning’s PBS Documentary “The Black Press: Soldiers Without Swords.”

Before we talk about the film, let’s take a look into what the Natural Law theory is. 

Natural Law Theory was created by Aquinas, a philosopher and a Catholic priest. 

Aquinas theorized that God was the creator of the universe and He applied tools and knowledge of morality unto others. Furthermore, with this knowledge, we could have good things and function smoothly as human beings. 

They were seven basic goods that the theory explained which is what every human wanted to desire:

1) Life

2) Reproduction

3) Educate one’s offspring 

4) Seek God

5) Live in Society

6) Avoid Offense

7) Shun Ignorance

In other words, these basic goods meant that humans were born with the desire of life and wanting to reproduce. We also had a desire to educate those who reproduce about morality and survival. Aquinas also believed that many people had a desire seek God and a higher power. We also had a desire to live among others, be social, avoid being offensive, and to avoid ignorance or poor decision making. 

However, it’s obvious that not all people are moral and that they commit immoral acts such as murder, hate crimes, and assault. So what did Aquinas have to say about this fact?

Aquinas said it because of two things, one being that many humans think what they are doing is good but it isn’t, therefore they are ignorant or two, emotions overpowers our ability to think rationally. 

Although this theory makes a lot of sense, a lot of people didn’t agree with this theory. For me personally since I’m a christian, I think this theory makes sense and it answers a lot of questions about where morality comes from but it doesn’t explain everything. For example, many people believe that they are some things that can be taken advantage of in this theory.

Some people are just immoral in general and do horrific things such as assault and murder, that can’t really be excused from ignorance or emotions. This brings me into how I think this theory plays a role into the documentary of “Black Press: Soldiers without Words.”

This is the first film in general that highlights the history of the black press during the times of the civil war and rights movement. It talks about the story of how many black journalists risked their lives to tell their perspective on what happened during this time of slavery and the desire to be free. 

A great example of black journalists is The Freedom Journal which was created in 1827. According to paperlessarchives.com, “[it] addressed contemporary issues of interest to African-Americans in the 1820's such as slavery, the right to vote, back-to-Africa colonization, injustices, and lynchings.”

Surprisingly, the black press was a success in its time and a lot of people particularly of color were glad to see that blacks have been able to clear up situations that was often misrepresented by white media. They wanted to tell the truth about slavery, colonization, and injustice. It talked about the harsh reality that just because New York was a free state at the time didn’t mean that all blacks were free. It also talked about how traveling to their home country was a failure because many blacks faced brutal conditions and many blacks were still treated unfairly. 

The reason why I believe that this ties into the Natural Law Theory has to do with white supremacy.

From the beginning, whites saw themselves as the “dominant race” and have taken the lands from native americans, enslaved the blacks, and much more for the state of power and control. These refers to the natural theory in terms of emotion and ignorance. Many whites believed what they were doing was fair because they emotionally wanted to be on top. They wanted power, they wanted to be the boss and wanted to be inferior, they didn’t want their power to be threatened. 

However, they were ignorant. They thought people of color weren’t people themselves because of the different shades we have. Black people used to be legally identified as monkeys because whites wanted to dehumanize them and be their “savior.” 

In the slavery period, a lot of whites actually used the natural law theory and twisted it up saying that it was “God’s way” and often used the bible to justify slavery. Although, this isn’t accurate, this does prove that the natural law theory can be taken advantage of in extreme ways.

When the PBS documentary came out and explained how the black press was popularized, whites tried to regain their control and tried to top the black press. They even tried to hired black journalists to do so. This just proves that anyone can become immoral and manipulative when it comes wanting control. 

So even though the natural law theory sounds nice and I agree with the theory to an extent, the ethical approach to natural law can definitely become skewed when it comes to wanting to be above anything or anyone else.

[kierap-world]

Divine Command Theory and How it Relates to the film “Spotlight”

Hey my fellow readers, I’m back with another post! Today, I’m going to be talking about Divine Command Theory and how I believe it ties into the film “Spotlight” 

Now what is the Divine Command Theory? 

It is the belief that morality comes from God or a divine being. A great example of this is christianity. Many christians believe that morality comes from the ten commandments.

To summarize this, many christians believe that they should love and honor their neighbors, they shouldn’t murder, be respectful, and do not cheat when you are married. Many people honor these commandments because they come from God and because they believe He is the creator of all things. 

However, Plato disagrees with all of this and has came up with his own questioning of the Divine Command Theory. It is called the “Euthyphro Problem” 

To sum it up, this problem or “dilemma” means that God states that this deed is right because He’s good. This would be the 1st horn. On the flip side, the second horn would mean that God states that this deed is right because God believes in doing that or has a desire for us to follow it.

According to Plato, he thought the both of these horns had their own pros and cons. Although, God is good, Plato wondered what made him good and what makes him moral. And on the other end, if God only says these things because he just wants others to follow it, who put those ideas in his head?

Many people have argued about which horn is right and which horn is wrong. As a christian myself, I do have my own beliefs and I think it’s perfectly fine for those to disagree as long as everyone respects each other’s perspective.

Therefore, which horn seems more align with their belief is up to the person who decides what’s best for them and I think that’s a great way to approach it.

Now let’s move on to the film “Spotlight”

Spolight is a biological drama that talks about child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. The film takes place in 1976 and it first centers around the Catholic priest John Geoghan for child molestation. However, throughout the span of the film, the boston globe discover over 87 abusive priests and they eventually ended up printed the story right after 9/11. 

Throughout the film, I was surprised to see how the church kept covering up these scandals and even one of the reporters named Robinson had never followed up on the abuse scandals when he was given the information back in 1993. 

So I did more research and it turns out these cases unfortunately do happen often. According to a grand jury report, “the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing, they hid it all. For decades.” 

How does this happen though?

 According to Tia Ghose, “priestly celibacy allows priests time and energy to focus completely on their flock and to emulate Jesus”

Therefore, priests aren’t allowed to marry and they are committed to a whole life of devotion, obedience, and to follow Jesus Christ. The fact that some priests are doing these immoral acts to children is appalling and doesn’t follow the rules of Catholicism. The fact that the church covers it up is also terrible and goes against God’s teachings. 

However, I think this happens a lot because a lot of people feel obligated and pressured to follow God’s rules and there’s where the divine command theory comes in. But that’s not an excuse and what happened to these poor children isn’t okay.

As I previously stated, I think it’s fair for someone to choose their beliefs based on what aligns with their own thoughts and values and they should not to feel pressured to go against it. For example, if you don’t believe in God, you can choose to be atheist and if you believe in a higher power, you can choose to be a christian. No one should feel pressured into choosing what they believe in. (No one should pressure religious people to go against their beliefs and no one should pressure non-religious people to go against their beliefs unless they have decided on this fact.)

Furthermore, I think these priests should not become actual priests if they are engaging in someone that’s immoral and that goes against not only their religion but legal laws as well. It’s terrible that some churches allow this when it goes against everything they have believed in. These needs to stop immediately and there should be legal action taken! Churches also should get priests who are fully devoted to God’s words and will not go against it. 

All in all, believe in what you believe, don’t force your believe on others, and stick to what you believe is best! Do not break the law, don’t hurt children, and be a good person!

[kierap-world]

Metaethics & News Wars, part III

Hello guys, welcome back to my blog!

Today, I’m going to talking about media ethics and how it relates to PBS’ documentary “News Wars Part 3.” 

So what are media ethics?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies morality. In other words, it studies wrong and right behavior. For example, is it right to lie for a good cause or is it wrong to be truthful when there’s consequences? 

Metaethics in all is the study of morality in itself. What is it exactly and how does it define our world? What would happen something right or something wrong?

They are a few solutions to that!

One, there is an ethical theory called moral realism which is a belief that are moral facts in the same way that they are scientific facts. This would mean that moral facts would be proven by evidence. However, this can be tricky because morality is different for everyone.

For example, some may believe it’s okay to kill one person to save many others while others believes it’s not okay to kill anyone at all. They were always be constant opinions on what it is right and what is wrong. Therefore, many may come to conclusion that they are no moral facts which is moral anti-realism. 

Other ethic theories that combat this would moral absolution, moral subjectivism, and cultural relativism. 

Moral absolution means that absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged. For example, according to ethics unwrapped, “most people around the world probably accept the idea that we should treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. But beyond that, people from different countries likely hold varying views about everything from the morality of abortion and capital punishment to nepotism and bribery.”

Because there is this constant disagreement on what is right and wrong, a lot of people look to moral subjectivism or cultural relativism. Moral subjectivism is the idea that moral statements can be true or false, right or wrong based on people’s attitudes. In other words, people have different moral views in the first place because it reflects a person’s emotions and feelings towards a situation. 

Cultural relativism is the same except it depends on the culture someone is coming from. For example, some cultures believe it’s okay to get shots for flu, hiv, and other sickness while others don’t. A normative way to look at this would be that the moral facts themselves differ in cultures not the culture itself. 

So how does this all relate to PBS’ Documentary “News Wars Part 3?” It relates to the idea that media is profited by what society wants and desires, this shapes journalism’ morals and ethical sense of behavior in many ways. 

According to the PBS documentary “News Wars Part 3″ Journalism in all forms of media is having an existential crisis. This is because many people believe that media is trying to please viewers rather than reveal the hard truths on what’s going on the world. 

I believe that this whole idea relates to cultural relativism. Our whole world is based on society and has been since forever. For example, society tells us that girls have to feminine, wear dresses, be housewife and have men take care of the bills. Although this idea seems absurd to most people in this generation, a lot of people believed it and still do because the society says so. This made me realize that society influences our views so much that even has a big role on what we believe is morally right or wrong.

An example of this is that headlines like “teen dating” and celebrity news appeals to majority of the audience today. Whether reporters want to do news on celebrities or teen advice isn’t up to them, it’s up to society. Reporters and new sites will do all they can to get recognition because society is built that way. The more news stories they do for profit the more their business get rewarded despite what they truly believe in. This is also an example of moral absolution, did you know that the show “Dateline” was controversial?

I surely did not. However, NBC news decided to broadcast it anyway in order to appeal to the audience. Although they are great benefits of this, it just goes to show you that’s not about the hard truth anymore, it’s about what the society wants. 

Therefore, what is morality?

I personally feel as if our morality is constantly being changed because we are so influenced by what the society tells us to do instead of we believe in that we don’t know ourselves anymore.  (The video down below is a following example)

I think based on this documentary and what I have learned about this topic, I think the real question is this: Will we ever be able to separate our beliefs from society in order to find our true outlooks on morality? 

Sadly, I think this question will never be answered.

[kierap-world]

Hedonism vs Eudaimonia & Citizen Kane

In today’s post, I’m going to be talking about Hedonism and Eudaimonia. I’m also going to address how these concepts are used in the movie “Citizen Kane” produced by Orson Wells which was one of the most popular movies in the 1940s. 

So before I jump right in, let me explain what Hedonism is!

Hedonism means the pursuit of pleasure.

In scientific words, it can summed up to be defined as the release of extra dopamine. People feel pleasure for all sorts of things such as chocolate, sex, partying, drugs, and alcohol. Hedonism is the idea of living a pleasurable life as a gateway to happiness. 

Now let’s talk about Eudaimonia!

Eudaimonia means to flourish. People who follow with this find their gateway to happiness by living a healthy and prosperous life!

The similarity between hedonism and eudaimonia is that they are both ethical theories on how humans should live their way of life. The differences is that hedonism believes that people can obtain happiness from pleasure whereas eudaimonia believes that happiness comes from health, community service, and financial success. 

Now that those ethical theories have been explained, let’s talk about these theories in relation to the movie “Citizen Kane”

In the movie, Charles Kane is the landlord of his castle in Xanadu and it is known as the “pleasurable dome.” According to the film of Citizen Kane, the palace was big enough for “10 museums, [it also had a lot of] paintings, livestock and stores.” Kane also owned the biggest zoo since Noah and had one of the costliest movements. 

This isn’t all! Because of his fame and success, he was one of the greatest newspaper tycoons of all time. He was also named after apartments, building, and a gold mine. 

Based on this movie’s depiction of the landlord, I would say that Kane lives his life following the ethical theory of hedonism. Although financial success can be seen as eudaimonia, he built his palace for pleasure and many people enjoyed it for those various reasons. 

However, he wasn’t just admired by all, he had some who didn’t like him either. 

According to a 1941 review in the New York Times, “Kane was a titanic egomaniac. It is also clearly revealed that the man was in some way consumed by his own terrifying selfishness.” Furthermore, throughout the film when Kane is on his deathbed, a reporter discovers this certain truth about him. 

It’s revealed in the film that Kane manipulated his way into success and did all he can to gain the pleasure of his life. This includes publishing scandals after taking over the New York Inquirer to knock his rival out of business, tricking the public on his thoughts of the spanish-american war and marrying the president’s niece. When their marriage falls through and becomes a major scandal, he remarries again and dominates his next wife Susan pushing her to do things she wasn’t good at such as singing opera.

Overall, this goes to show you that it doesn’t matter how famous and rich someone is, that doesn’t mean they are a down to earth person!

All in all, I believe that the movie “Citizen Kane” illustrates the ethical theory of hedonism and how it can negatively impact someone’s life and their world around them. Kane became obsessed with the pleasures of his life and manipulated and did immoral things to become the famous man that he was today. 

I think it’s great to have fun and do pleasurable things however, it is also important to remember to be sincere, healthy, and to live a life with a moral attitude otherwise bad things can happen.