There was a story on AOL news about a couple from Arizona who was accused of sexual abuse of their three daughters. The couple went to a local Walmart to have over 140 family vacation photos developed, and 6 or 7 of the photos happened to be harmless "bath time" photos of the very young girls either wrapped in towels or in towels smiling next to their father etc. The Walmart associate who developed those photos considered the photos to be pornographic, and reported them. The daughters were taken away from their parents for a month (ages 18 months, 4, and 5) and the parents were taken to court. The judge ruled the pictures harmless, as thousands of people do take photos of their children growing up and especially cute bath time photos. However, the damage has clearly been done because the daughters were taken from their parents and the parents had to register as sex offenders, and were ostracized from their work environments etc. Now that the family is reunited, the couple is suing Walmart for the traumatic ordeal. I thought this story was a good real life example of how two conflicting ethical theories of Consequentialism and Deontology make it difficult to assign blame or forgiveness to either side of the stories. The employee’s actions were nonmaleficent, he or she acted to prevent further harm to the children, but the outcome was maleficent because the family was put through such hardships for the employee’s mistakes. Was the employee acting by the theories of Deontology, and did not think of the possible consequences of his or her actions? Is there more to the story that we do not know?
So the debate at hand over this Walmart situation is whether or not we should punish the associate for the damage that was done to this family by a costly mistake, or commend him or her for acting benevolently for the community and the sake of the daughters whom he or she presumed was in danger? What are we missing from this story that might make the right decision clearer? What does this tell us about two conflicting ethical principles?
(Submitted by Alexandra Pitkin)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The employees actions in this particular case in and of themselves were for a just cause and thus under the normative ethical paradigm of deontology, he was justifed in his actions. By reporting the pictures, which he believed to be signs of abuse, he was living up to the duty of preventing harm. The employee believed that the father may be harming his children and so the employee reported the case to the proper authorities.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this case shows the faults in the practical application of deontology. Although the employee was acting in a not only morally acceptable but morally commendable way through the ethical lens of deontology, he failed to analyze the possible results of his actions. The employee should have realized that most likely there was no harm being done because the pictures were relatively harmless. He should have taken into account the hardship the family, including the childen, would have to go through if he reported the father as a possible sex offender. Had he known that the father was not a sex offender and that the family was go through such a harrowing ordeal, he probably would not have reported the photos, but he did not have the foresight to think about these possible negative consequences.
Clearly, even if inadvertently, the Walmart employee had inflicted hardships on the family without ample evidence to lead him to take such actions. Thus, Walmart should be held accountable for unduly suspecting their customers and causing them pain.
This story clearly shows that people cannot take actions without first considering the possible consequences. Although the employee was noble in his intentions, the eventual result of his actions was harmful.
~Ankit Agarwal
I believe that the situation shows a clear distinction between the deontology view on a situation and the consequentialistic perspective on the same situation. However, it is not wholly clear that the employee was acting in concordance with deontological ideology.
ReplyDeleteFrom a consequentialist's point of view, it is clear that the employee was not acting morally [it is important not to confuse consequentialism with a popular sub-category, utilitarianism]. From their perspective, the morality of an action can be clearly defined by the consequence of that action regardless of motive or intent. Thus, the pain and agony that was caused by the employee would be a clear indication that the employee was doing wrong.
In converse, both utilitarianism and deontology might have a different take on the situation. From a deontological point of view, it might have been the employee's duty to report the photos in case that the family members were sex offenders. Although it might not be a universal perfect duty, it can be seen as what Kant would call an "imperfect" duty. In his theory, he focuses on the intent of the action, and if the employee felt that s/he was doing the right thing, then there should be no blame.
Interestingly, from a utilitarian standpoint, the situation might also be permitable. In Mill's theory of utility, although there is a focus on the resulting util created for everyone, there is also an emphasis on whether the person in question was trying to promote good. In a way, utilitarianism emphasizes how much util the person INTENDED to create rather than the amount that s/he actually did. This is a key difference between consequentialism and utilitarian ideology that must be highlighted. From the utilitarian point of the view, it comes down to a key idea: Moral Luck.
Moral Luck is defined as "a phenomenon whereby a moral agent is assigned moral blame or praise for an action or its consequences even though it is clear that said agent did not have full control over either the action or its consequences." For example, two individuals run a red light. While one individual gets a ticket, the other one kills a person walking across the street by accident. Although the two individuals preformed the same action, they are judged differently due to the outcome of the infraction.
In context to this scenario, if the parents were actually sex offenders, we would judge the scenario completely differently. In fact, the headlines might be praising the employee rather than ostracizing him/her. From this I believe the story reveals more than simply about two conflicting ethical principles; rather it illuminates a greater debate between how we judge individuals based on the luck of a situation. In the end, this is the information that we are missing from the situation: how it would have played out, if the opposite happened. When looked at from this new perspective, I believe we are more hesitant to criticize the individual - perhaps moral luck was just not on his or her side.
Consequentialism defines morally correct actions based on the good that results from them. In the Walmart situation there were two general outcomes that the employee could have predicted. Either the children were being sexually abused and the employee’s actions would be applauded, or the children were not being sexually abused and the family would undergo inexplicable amounts of pain and embarrassment. If in fact the children were being sexually abused, it could be argued that the good that would have resulted from the report would outweigh the negative outcomes resulting if the children were not being abused. In actuality the outcome resulted in huge amounts of negative effects, which would in hindsight rule the actions morally wrong. However before a decision could be reached about the actions of the employee to report the photos what we know and do not know about the situation should be addressed.
ReplyDeleteWe do not know the policy for the profession of photo development in terms of reporting suspicious activities and Walmart’s policy explicitly. Also we do not know what rights of privacy exists in the situation of developing photos. Was the employee invading the privacy of the family? We also do not know the background of the employee? Is he or she extremely religious, maybe to the level of fanaticism, which could influence his or her perspective of the situation? We do know that the picture were of very young girls during bath time. The fact that they are very young suggests they are likely completely dependent on their parents. It was stated that in all the pictures the girls were covered in towels. Is the employee suggesting that fathers of daughters should not be allowed to bathe their daughters, or can only take pictures if they are fully clothed? Perhaps there is a certain age at which time these actions begin to seem appropriate, but what is that age? Who determines it, and does it vary on different situations? Would the situation be reported if it was a mother with young boys?
In terms of Kant’s deontological argument the morally right way depends on duty and the motive of the person. One test of this is if the actions of the employee could be applied universally then he or she acted in morally correct manner. The difficulty arises in how you define the actions. Should the universal rule be if you think sexual abuse of children is occurring then you should report them, or is it more specific, that fathers should not take pictures with their daughters during bath time? If the former is the duty then deontology would commend the actions of the employee. If the later was the duty then the result would cause unimaginable damage to family dynamics and relationships between fathers and daughters, therefore deontology would not approved of the employees actions.
I think the major problem was based around common sense and the lack of it in this case. Had the employee thought about the potential consequences, or thought about the normal nature of the photographs he or she may have not acted the same way. If the situation was taken strictly as the duty to report sexual abuse, given how the situation played out deontology would commend the employee in upholding his duty to report child abuse, while consequentialism would note the huge amount of negative outcomes and rule the actions were likely not commendable. Although as we all know there is much more to every situation.
The walmart associate followed the principle of Deontology by reporting these photos because they contained nude images of children. Nude images of children can constitute child pornography, so this employee was following a standard rule to report such an image. This entire situation is not the fault of this one employee however, because the Arizona state government stepped in after these photos were reported. The government acted according to the principle of Deontology because it chose the action that it believed was morally right- regardless of its consequences. The officials in this case decided that this family's pictures, depicting nude children, constituted child pornography and, therefore, child abuse, and did not consider the consequences of their actions if these images were not, in fact, legally pornographic. After the photos were brought to the investigator's attention by walmart, they could have reviewed them and decided, without any further legal action, that these photos did not legally constitute pornography because they were not sufficiently sexually suggestive.
ReplyDeleteIf the Arizona state government followed the principle of Consequentialism, then they would not be facing a lawsuit by the family they harmed during this investigation. They chose to pursue this case as though these parents were sexual predators and the only way to benefit these children would be to remove them from their parents' custody. They did not consider the psychological harm they potentially did to these children and their parents during this investigation and how that harm would affect them in the future. The officials, perhaps, were severely punishing the parents to exemplify their zero tolerance policy on sexual abuse. The officials acted unjustly and caused these parents and their children unnecessary harm, both psychologically and in the public eye. I think this family deserves a settlement from the Arizona state government for damages and I believe walmart should be responsible for informing their customers of policies that involve reporting merchandise to state officials.
This example shows that the principle of Deontology should not be blindly followed and that the consequences of every possible outcome must be considered, along with a hefty dose of common sense, before making an important ethical decision.
According to the principles of deontology and consequentialism, the Walmart employee was both right and wrong. Each theory supports the actions taken by the employee in a different way. Deontology supports the actions of the employee by saying that is the employee's duty to protect the children and try to stop harm. However, "bath time" photos are common to be taken by parents. What is not known from this story is if the employee noticed any suspicious behavior from the parents on how they treated their kids in the store. Although the principle of deontology supports the employee's actions because it was his duty to report something that he thought was unsafe to the children, there has to be more to the story. In my opinion, just innocent bath time photos is not a good enough excuse to cause all of that turmoil.
ReplyDeleteAccording to consequentialism, the action that reaps the greatest beneficial consequences should be taken. I feel that the employee acted rashly and impulsive on seeing the photos. No time was taken to sit and think about the consequences of the employee's actions. In my opinion, the employee should have confronted the parents or even a store manager before taking the case to such a high degree of authority. In support of consequentialism, the employee was wrong. More negative consequences resulted from the employees actions than good consequences. Now, the parents were forced to register as sex offenders altering their social image. Because the children were removed from their parents' custodies for a period of time, great psychological effects resulted.
What puzzles me in this case is the impulsive behaviors taken by the employee. Although the employee made an ethical decision to protect the well-being of the children, in doing so, the employee impeded the family's living. Clearly, some information is not given. There must have been something else going on that led to the employee's suspicions. However, I think that the employee should have really thought about his decision before making such a drastic one.
I am from Arizona, and I would just like to comment first on the reaction the state of Arizona, and the city council of Peoria is having regarding this case. Janet Napolitano, the current Homeland Security Secretary, and former Arizona Governor, partially built her career on child abuse/protection advocacy. A large contributor to her initial popularity, for both ends of the political spectrum, Napolitano began her Arizona tenure with a crusade to protect children, clearing the states suspended/forgotten child abuse and neglect cases. So, regarding this story, the legal aspect and the reaction of the state, is one of extreme advocacy with its interests placed in strict lawfulness. That being said I DO NOT THINK that the state, in its refusal to drop the parent’s child pornography trafficking charges, is acting within a Deontological mind frame. The state was following the law, and as it is written law, then there is no room for negotiation, and the state never made a choice about what was Right, in the Deontological sense. I believe the state’s decision is in the category of Rule Based Ethics (reading up on this subject I am finding many conflicting sources that consider this part of deontology, or if it a subset of Justice Ethics. There is also the discussion that Rule-Based ethics binds you to the law, therefore it is considered Deontological.) I do however believe that the Wal-Mart’s photo clerk reaction was true to Deontology in that he acted without hesitation, to the nearest responsible authority. This action was of beneficence, because he was trying to help the girls. It can be argued that the clerk wasn’t being beneficent, he actually didn’t even know what to do so he asked his boss, and maybe the boss decided it was pornographic and should be reported. Watching an interview of the couple, it was striking to see how overwhelmed the couple is by what they called “the easy distribution of photographs today.” I think this is a really valid point. With all of the social networking media, and instantaneous technology, any of our pictures can be mass distributed in a number of seconds, and ruin any of our lives. I suggest we all go check our Facebooks for inappropriate photos, and make sure your privacy settings are set on private.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Aldrich
Kant defines deontology as a theory that bases assessment of rightness and wrongness on the specific action; the consequences of that action are not evaluated under a deontological point of view. Deciding between deontology and consequentialism, I would say that the employee followed the principle of deontology. In this scenario, the employee saw photographs of young girls in towels next to their father that he considered to be pornographic. From this one act of seeing three naked children in towels next to their father, the Walmart employee determined that the photographs showed child pornography. Because of this assessment, the employee then notified the authorities, which in turn led to the children being temporarily taken away from their parents. In the most basic sense, I do think the employee followed the principle of Deontology; the employee thought that the photographs were pornographic and that the children were in danger, so he reported the parents.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel that these photographs had nothing to do with the Walmart employee and that employee should never have even had a say in assessing the nature of the photographs. If the employee developed over 140 photographs but only 6 or 7 of them were “pornographic” ones, that means the employee must have looked through a large amount of the photographs to even get this idea. By doing this, the employee’s actions were morally wrong. The photographs were possessions of the family and NOT of the employee. Had a higher authority seen these pictures and assessed them in the same way, the actions maybe would be considered morally right.
I definitely do not think that the employee should be commended for his actions. Though he may have though that he was acting benevolently for the community, assuming that the photographs were “pornography” was too complex of an assumption to be followed in a deontological manner. I do not think this scenario is really even an example that shows the conflicting nature of consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialist theories were not used at all in this instance but they should have been to maximize benefits and minimize harm. It seems that the employee did not even think twice about his actions, nor did he even think logically; it is very common for parents to take photographs of their children during bath time and after. Either information is missing from this story or the employee acted way too rashly and made a decision that only adversely affected the stakeholders.
~Laura Simon
According to the theory of deontology, making choices are entirely dependent on what our duties are - so by behaving morally is when we are following our duties. In addition, moral principles are entirely independent from any consequences that a principle might have so our obligations and duties should be sorted out objectively, and not subjectively. For example, if you have a moral duty not to lie, then lying would be considered wrong - always, no matter what the circumstances are. Therefore, if you lied to Nazis about the hiding places of where Jews were, then you would be acting immorally. In this example, the idea of harming others, here- it would be the Jews, is extremely hard accept and follow because it would be choosing the "lesser of two evils." Therefore, deontology does not allow room for judgement upon various situations.
ReplyDeleteBy applying this definition to the Walmart employee, the employee actually was acting on side with the theories of deontology. By reporting the pictures of the children, the employee had (or believed to have) a duty to protect the children and having the intention of causing no future harm to the children. The consequences and result of the employee's actions have no relationship to what the employee actually ended up doing; because questioning the morality of an action does not exist. What does exist is absolute principles and absolute conclusions. Therefore, what seemed to be grateful and morally right of the employee did not end up being so - having caused damage to the family and such, does not matter - because by fulfilling a duty, the employee has done what was morally right. Therefore, if we were to follow the guidelines of deontology, then choosing to punish or commend the employee is completely independent of what resulted from his/her actions; making the employee free from accusations and faults.
The theory of Consequentialism (also known as utilitarianism) refers the idea that by committing morally right actions will produce a good outcome or consequence. It focuses on achieving the best possible outcome. Perhaps the employee believed that by reporting the parents as possible sex offenders, he/she may have thought that this would be beneficial to the children. However, this did not happen, therefore the employee did not commit anything morally right and anything for the great good, because it resulted in temporary but harmful separation within the family and damage to the parents' work environments.
---CONTINUED BELOW
--CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is hard to judge the situation without referring to the actual results of the employee's actions. If the parents really were sex offenders - then the actions of the employee would be placed on a silver platter and the employee would have be rewarded for being a hero and savior. However, if the parents were not sex offenders, such as what was written above in the article, then the employee would have been looked down upon for causing so much trouble and problems for the parents and their children. That's why I believe that depending on the outcome, can we THEN judge the basis of both ethical theories and decide what seems more fitting.
By looking and comparing both theories, it shows the benefits and disadvantages of both theories and I believe by finding that balance is what makes it hard to consider what is morally right and wrong; so the question of when to find that balance depends entirely on applied situations. I believe that both theories only offer an argument to one side - but to fully understand and seek for results require more than one. The theory of consequentialism may seem too unrealistic, demanding and stressful - in that everything except the very best is morally wrong, which in reality, is impossible. To add on, it may bring up possible situations, for example, in that maybe one must kill an innocent person in order to protect and save other people. For deontology, what may seem morally right may not always be the best solution (referring back to telling the truth to the Nazis about hiding places. Therefore, with careful calculation and a hint of common sense, the Walmart employee could have avoided this entire mess by thinking about both what his "duties" were, and at the same time, think about what could come of it.
After reading about this situation, my thoughts first turned to the employee and his or her background. Was he or she sexually abused as a child? Is the employee from a country where pictures of children in bathtubs is not a common practice and as such not accepted by society as normal? If the employee has some sort of background which explains the seemingly overreaction to the photos, then can we really blame him or her for reacting that way? Cultural relativism states that we should accept the practices of other cultures, and if the culture this employee comes from associates such photographs with pornography, then we should respect that. The actions of the employee did result in harm to the entire family, but the employee thought he or she was doing the right thing and preventing harm.
ReplyDeleteI think the bigger issue here is the policy of Walmart as a corporation. Even if the employee does not have a background that explains the overreaction, he or she was still following company policy in reporting the photos. As the employer, Walmart should be commending their employee for following the appropriate procedure as laid out in their policies. That being said, since the outcome of this particular case was not positive, Walmart as a corporation should be blamed since it is their policy which the employee followed. The damage to this family has already been done, but a policy review could prevent such incidents from happening again and insure that employees take action only when deemed appropriate.
In the case of this employee's job, and moral duties as a person, within the theory of deontology he did exactly what is considered the 'right' thing to do. He has a moral obligation to act in the interest of what he considers good or right, regardless of the consequence, be it good or bad. The right thing to do, I am assuming from his actions, was to report what he thought was a case of wrong doing. If the parents had actually been sexually abusing their children, there would be no question as to whether this was or was not the right thing to do. Since it turns out, under the judge's ruling, that the parents were not acting in any sort of maleficent way, the question of ethics is brought up. Life is a series of chances that people take, regardless of what the outcome may actually be. If abuse was going on, and the employee who saw these pictures kept his mouth shut, then the employee, would have been an innocent bystander who allowed these actions to take place.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of consequentialism, one could argue that the employee was wrong because of the trauma that this family has now faced. On the other hand though, if abuse was taking place, a consequentialist would argue that the employee did the 'right' thing because it provided a good outcome (the parents being taken away from their abusive parents). There was no way of actually knowing what was going on without confronting the situation, which the person did.
In my opinion, the employee did the right thing. He took a chance, based on his gut feeling and based on rule based ethics in which he is obliged to follow under the employment of Walmart. Although this particular family turned out to be one that did no wrong (as far as we know), there are families that do wrong. Without people, such as this employee, who act with their heart and BOTH deontological and consequential ethical standards, there may be a lot of harm that goes unreported. In a deontological sense, he did the right thing and in a consequentialist sense, he may have technically done the wrong thing, but it would have been the right thing had there been actual abuse taking place. He acted with both theories in mind, and if abuse had taken place, he would have been right in both senses but since there was no abuse, this act can be considered deontological and done with good intention.
The employee was in fact acting on the principles of Deontology when she reported the photos. Applying this theory, it is clear that her thought process was based around her universal moral duty to report something that she felt was morally incorrect. It is generally understood that child pornography is wrong, this being said ,the employee’s intention was not to cause harm or embarrassment to the family, but to expose something our society considers to be morally inappropriate and obscene.
ReplyDeleteThe employee also could have acted on utilitarian principles: assuming the responsibility to maximize the good that possibly could have been achieved in the situation by exposing child pornographers and ultimately causing a trial/punishment for the sex offenders. If the possible positive consequences were compared with the possible negative consequences of the family, who were the only ones who would have suffered, the positive consequences would have a greater benefit to the population as a whole. In this situation it would make more sense to risk the embarrassment of one family than to expose potentially harmful people.