Application of Utilitarianism

A utilitarian response would focus on applying the Greatest Happiness Principle. It would evaluate whether publication produces the greatest net benefit (pleasure, well-being, or happiness) while minimizing harm (pain, suffering, or unhappiness). The article should be published if the overall benefits are greater than the harms. These feelings are subjective. The utilitarian perspective would not consider greater principles - such as the value of free speech, or the inherent value of privacy - unless violating or following these directly impacted on overall happiness. 

There are a number of reasons for why publishing will boost aggregate utility. If the information exposes corruption, abuse of power, public health risks, or other harms, it can lead to greater accountability, justice, and reform, all of which could generate lots of happiness. Informed citizens can make better political or personal decisions, leading to greater overall well-being. Publishing sensitive information might avert future harm, such as revealing unsafe practices in the car industry or preventing environmental disasters. Preventing harm to many people outweighs harm to the few whose privacy is compromised, or may feel deeply unhappy at the revelations, either because they are directly concerned or because they are otherwise upset at the news. A utilitarian would also look at long-term benefits - such as fostering transparency and building an informed society - and see whether that outweighs the short-term harm - such as distress or embarrassment or disgust. Utilitarianism values social and political structures that promote well-being. Transparency and access to truthful information are fundamental to democracy and public trust, which contribute to societal happiness, which might be another reason to publish.

There are also plenty of reasons why a utilitarian may not want to publish an article. Publishing sensitive information can harm people by inflicting emotional trauma, reputational damage, or even threats to their physical safety. A utilitarian would weigh this harm against the benefits to society. If the harm to a single person or a small group is intense and long-lasting, it might outweigh the diffuse and less certain benefits to the public, especially if the potential beneficiaries don't really care.

Some negative consequences could be longer-term. A loss of trust in newspapers for publishing intrusive or gossipy material could reduce trust in the media, causing long-term harm if people turn to fake news or rumors instead. If the benefits of publishing are speculative (it might lead to a good outcome, but we can't be sure), the certain harm to individuals may outweigh the potential good.

How useful is Utilitarianism  in relation to publishing sensitive information?

One challenge with utilitarianism is that it cannot offer a universal answer. It always depends on the circumstances and the details. The ethics of publishing or not would always depend on a specific calculation and we could rarely know in advance what the best course of action would be. 

In my opinion, this means that the utilitarian approach isn't very useful. In some cases, the happiness gained from publication might be ethically problematic. For example, if the public derives pleasure from someone's humiliation, or takes joy in someone else's suffering, is this happiness morally valuable? A utilitarian who emphasises happiness would struggle to distinguish between constructive happiness (informed citizens) and harmful happiness (eg. joy at someone's humiliation). This creates a flaw for utilitarianism: Should all types of happiness be treated equally or should only 'virtuous' happiness count? Is the happiness generated when people find out about the private life of their favourite YouTuber worth as much as the happiness generated by the prevention of a great crime? 

As well as this, happiness is not the only value and reducing ethics to happiness alone overlooks other values, such as justice, dignity, fairness, privacy and freedom. There is also great difficulty in measuring and predicting happiness in this context. It is inherently subjective and measuring it reliably is practically impossible. In the process of deciding whether to publish sensitive information, it would be impractical for journalists to calculate the precise balance of happiness and suffering. Would an outside agency be forced to make these decisions? Would journalists have to wait before writing and publishing their articles or pictures until they are given the green light? This would abolish the role of Editor and eliminate the freedom of the press, one of the central . Censorship would make a return. It already exists in dictatorships such as the United Arab Emirates, Russia or China but not in free democracies such as the UK, America or France. 

Furthermore, utilitarianism prioritises the greatest number of people over the intensity of their happiness. For example, if publishing sensitive information benefits a large number of people (eg. They feel informed or entertained) but severely harms a few individuals (e.g. It ruins their lives), is it justified? Utilitarianism would say yes but relying on this sort of calculation feels morally wrong to me. I believe that freedom is good and that individuals have their own value, and they shouldn't simply be sacrificed for the sake of the majority. 

While utilitarianism offers a framework for ethical decisions in journalism, it has significant limitations and is impractical. These issues highlight the need for a different ethical approach.