A Family's Grief: A Man's Reward

Here is a review on a story that took place several years ago. Many of the philosophical arguments and facts came from my notes from a philosophy course that I took in college.

On a tragic summer day in late July, Edward Romero drowned in a lake outside of a town called Bakersfield. As Edward and his brother were swimming in the local lake, his brother lost track of him. When the report of the missing boy was broadcast via police scanner, John Harte was the only photographer working at the Bakersfield Californian. He heard the news and immediately headed to the scene.

Divers were searching for Romero by the time Harte arrived at the lake. They eventually found the body. They pulled the body from the lake, brought it on shore and put it in a body bag. By this time, several reporters had arrived and were filming the scene. The television reporters turned their cameras away as the body was being placed in the bag in front of grief-stricken family members. The police and other officials struggle to keep the crowd that had gathered away from the distraught family and busy officials. Yet, Harte quickly managed to snap eight frames with his motor-driven camera.

Harte brought the pictures back to the office and called in his editor, Robert Bentley, to make a decision on publicizing the photograph. According to policy, photographs of dead bodies were not to be published, but the power of Harte's photograph was too much to ignore. Bentley and Harte made their decision based on the incredible impact they felt this tragic picture could have on the opportunity to promote water safety.

After the picture had been published, the Californian received an influx of complaints from horrified readers. Phone calls, letters, and some eighty cancellations bombarded the newspaper as they registered their utter dissatisfaction. A bomb threat caused newspaper employees to evacuate the building for ninety minutes.

The ethical dilemma lies in Harte's decision to publish his photograph in the Californian. Was the exploitation of a family's grief worth the amount of lives it could potentially save by promoting better water safety? Was the actual face of the dead boy necessary to convey Harte's point? Was the pitiful, dejected face of the mother and the terrified look on the brother's face necessary to communicate the potential dangers of water? Harte thought so. Let us now investigate two great philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, to learn if they would agree with Harte.

In order to debate the ethics of such a complicated and tragic situation, one must first understand what each philosopher believes. Immanuel Kant and Aristotle both present philosophical arguments that suggest that Harte's decision was not ethical. Yet, Kant and Aristotle's philosophical ideas are very different in nature.

Kant's philosophy is deontological, meaning it is rooted in the concept of duty. He bases his ethical evaluations on absolute principle. Kant states that in order to assess a situation ethically, feelings and emotions must not be involved. Feelings are simply relative and subjective and can differ from one person to the next. He points out that the things that produce happiness tend to develop through great amounts of stress and strife. Therefore, the desires of people cannot be involved in deciding the ethical nature of a given situation. Ethical evaluations must stem from that which is solely good-the good will. The good will is further explained in the heart and soul of Kant's ethics: the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative is a step process that explains how to evaluate whether or not behavior is ethical. The first step states that the only good thing in and of itself is the good will. Secondly, the good will is that which wills for the sake of duty. Thirdly, willing for the sake of duty means willing out of respect or reverence for the moral law. Fourthly, willing out of respect for the moral law means willing according to universality. And finally, willing according to universality means willing according to the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is also known as the "absolute command," that which is universally good.

Kant believed that the good will is good without stipulations based on the relativity of human emotion. He did not correlate the concept of happiness with ethical evaluation. The eventual achievement of happiness rarely comes without grief, envy, and anxiety. The inclinations of each person are too subjective to allow ethical judgments on a given situation. Therefore, the good will must remain an absolute command (categorical imperative) in order to make an ethical evaluation. Kant relies on practical reason as the only possible avenue to creating an absolute method for ethics.

The categorical imperative has two important formulations. The first formulation is rooted in the idea of universalizability. Kant said, "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, what one intends to be ethically acceptable for him, he should wish to be universally ethically acceptable-regardless of person, place, or time. To fail the categorical imperative is to wish one thing for everyone else, and yet something else for one's self. One must take into account one's own actions and be able to wish them as a moral universal law. This law is to be a valid, binding law at all times and places.

The third formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is just as pertinent to his philosophy as the first. Kant said to "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

There is an important distinction to be made in this third formulation. All people use other people as means to an end. Unethical behavior rests in the use of someone merely as a means to an end. For example, teachers use their students for a paycheck and students reciprocally use teachers for an education. There is nothing inhumane or degrading about this behavior.

However, in a rather extreme example, a man that kidnaps a child for ransom money is simply using the child as a means to gain money. He has no respect for the child's human dignity. Doing so states that the child's human value lies solely in his use to the kidnapper. Kant said that what only has value in use are referred to as "things." Rational beings are referred to as "persons," implying the value these beings have outside of their use to another being.

So, what did Kant say in regard to the controversial Harte photograph published in the Californian for eighty thousand readers to see? The first obvious step is to put the photograph up against the categorical imperative. The first formulation of the categorical imperative asks if publishing the photograph could become a universalized moral law. If all journalists publish such photographs, it would eventually desensitize the public to such grotesque visualizations. Harte stated, as a defense for publishing it, that the picture could promote water safety. If every journalist published every horrific picture, newspapers would be filled with detestable photographs of death. And yet, each of these pictures, too, could possibly promote safety in their various situations. Therefore, Kant would reject the publication of Harte's picture based on the universalizability test.

Yet, Kant would not stop at the universalizability test. He would also apply his third formulation. Did Harte use the family and the dead boy as a mere means to his desired end? What was his desired end? Harte stated that the picture alone did more to promote water safety than thousands of words could have accomplished. Yet, it could be argued that Harte was seeking increased sales and subscriptions, and possibly even a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize.

Therefore, we must look at the family and the boy as a means, since we know the possible end outcomes. Kant would argue that Harte used the grief of the family and the image of the dead boy merely as a means to his own desired personal end. Kant says that all people should be seen as ends in themselves. How, then, can the grief-stricken family, this dreadful moment in their lives, not be a simple means to an end? What can the family possibly gain from the exploitation of their horror? The simple answer is nothing. There is nothing to be gained from the misuse of such a terrifyingly captivating photograph. The family is simply a catalyst to the success Harte hopes to achieve.

Kant's ethical evaluation of Harte's photograph relies on the categorical imperative and its two formulations. Yet, this is simply one man's philosophical approach to the issue. In an effort to evaluate the controversial situation, let study another great philosopher. Aristotle, a teontologically based philosopher, sheds a different perspective on the issue.

Aristotle's philosophy has several main parts. He asserts that "happiness is the activity of soul in accordance with virtue." With this statement, it is important to understand some terms that Aristotle uses in his philosophy.

First, what does Aristotle mean by "virtue"? He states that virtue is the "excellence of a thing." But then, what is the virtue of a human being? Aristotle defines a human being as having three different types of psyche. The first type is vegetative life, that which involves growth and nutrition. The second type is animal life, that which involves perception and bodily activity. Both the first and second types are shared with plant and animal life. Aristotle points to the third type to distinguish human life from all other forms of life. He refers to the third type as rational life, that is, a being comprised of a body and soul, as well as a moral capability not possessed by vegetative and animal life.

So what defines virtuous behavior for humans who are rational beings with moral capabilities? Aristotle says there are two forms of virtue. The first, he states, includes intellectual virtue such as calculus, physics, economics, etc. Yet, these virtues have little to do with the question of ethics. Aristotle focused more on the second form of virtue-moral virtue. Moral virtue encompasses practical uses of reason developed through experience and habit. He believed that moral virtue was not programmed into human life. Rather, he believed it was learned behavior that, through trial and error, developed the potential that humans have as rational beings.

Possibly one of the key aspects of Aristotle's philosophy lies in his views of moderation. He believed that, when looking at past experiences, one discovers that we become most virtuous by choosing the mean in most cases. He believed that avoiding the extremes of excess and deficiency would support the development of virtuous behavior. However, it is important to note that the mean, as Aristotle calls it, is relative to each situation. It is not the same as an arithmetic mean that is constant in each situation.

So what is Aristotle's position on Harte's controversial publication of the dead body photograph? It is necessary to look at the situation through all of Aristotle's philosophical pillars. Aristotle said that happiness was the end of all virtue. Was happiness the product of the publication of the photograph? Aristotle would say that eighty cancellations, five hundred letters, and four hundred phone calls are not evidence of a feeling of happiness. The anger generated by Harte's action was an obvious clue that the publication of the picture would not pass the test of Aristotle's philosophy.

Another aspect of Aristotle's philosophy that is relevant to this particular issue involved his assertion concerning moderation. He stated that moderation involved avoiding the extremes of excess and deficiency. The publication would have failed in Aristotle's category of excess. The grievous looks on the faces of the mother and brother, paired with the viewable face of the drowned boy, would prove to be of extreme nature. Yet, at the same time, Aristotle would also have wanted to avoid the possibility of deficiency. Not publishing the picture could err on the side of deficiency.

So how does Aristotle satisfy his theory of moderation? Cropping the picture in a manner that takes away some of the intrusive nature could be a possible solution. Removing the face of the dead body, or of the mother and brother's graphic grief could also have been suitable compromises. However, the photograph then loses much of its impact.

Another concern would be the sheer necessity of the picture to the story. Could words suffice Harte's self-stated cause of promoting water safety? Is the publicity of the victimized family's anguish vital to the impact of the story?

Aristotle believed that deficiency and excess were equal evils. Therefore, not running the photograph could also err on the side of deficiency. Publishing the photograph in its entirety would prove to be extremist behavior. Therefore, for all parties concerned, Harte, the family, and the public, moderating and publishing the picture would be Harte's most virtuous option.

After studying two of the greatest thinkers the world has known, it is now my turn to pose my philosophy. By doing so, it is only natural that I use such trained and sophisticated thinkers to assist me. After considering the aspects of the "Dead Body Photo" story, Harte's actions, perceived intentions, the people's reactions, conjoined with the thoughts of Aristotle and Kant, I have come to agree with Kant's perspective.

Kant based his philosophy on practical reason. He would be sure to discount all emotions and feelings in order to create an absolute command. I agree with this formulation. When emotions are involved, it is far too easy to remain in a subjective state of mind. Regardless of how I evaluate the photograph, I cannot allow emotions to dictate my ethical attitude towards the situation.

Aristotle's philosophy incorporates emotion as a factor. He believed that the product of acting in virtue was happiness. Therefore, we should act hoping to achieve true happiness through virtuous behavior. Kant believed we should act in accordance with duty.

The most compelling point that Kant made was in his third formulation. Kant said we are to never treat another merely as a means to an end. Was Harte's action to publish the photo using the family as a mere means to an end? The answer is absolutely. Though Harte believed this tragic photograph would benefit water safety, what gain can the family derive from the publication? Kant says that all humans should be treated as ends in themselves. Harte treated the family simply as an avenue to his own personal fame.

Aristotle's suggestion of moderation is not enough to alter my thinking regarding publishing the photograph. I do not believe there is a satisfactory way to crop the photograph. Without the visual elements of the boy in the body bag and the grieving family, there really is little value in the photograph at all. The question of publication in this sense, to me, is that of all or nothing. Therefore I disagree with Aristotle in this particular case. Moderation would not be the most ethical solution to this problematic dilemma.

However, I do see light in Aristotle's philosophical approach to happiness. Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. If virtuous activity promotes true happiness for the human being, and the act of publishing the photograph is virtuous, then Harte should achieve a state of happiness. I find it hard to believe that, after the avalanche of complaints, Harte could be satisfied with his decision to publish the picture. He brought no happiness to the Romero family and friends. Therefore, I believe that Aristotle's point on happiness supports my disagreement with publication of the photograph.

Such controversial topics are very difficult to analyze because they are just that-controversial. It is necessary then, to consider any and all viewpoints. Doing so provides a valid basis on the given situation. In this paper I have explored just two of many philosophical approaches that can be applied to the Harte photograph. However, the approaches Kant and Aristotle take both support the conclusion that John Harte engaged in unethical behavior.