IN CONCLUSION...
Before the Project:
I believe that publishing sensitive information is always wrong, no matter the potential benefits to the public. I feel that privacy and personal boundaries should be respected at all times, and it's never justified to expose someone's private life, even for the greater good. In my view, protecting individuals from harm and upholding their dignity should always come first, and newspapers should never invade in anyone's private life because it can have disastrous impacts on them and the people surrounding them.
After the project:
In conclusion, after carefully analysing the ethical implications of publishing sensitive information through the lenses of Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Natural law, Situation ethics, and Libertarianism, I believe that Kantian ethics and libertarianism provide the most valuable guidance in this context. Kantian ethics emphasises the importance of treating individuals with respect and adhering to moral duties, which aligns with the responsibility of journalists to maintain integrity and honesty. Libertarianism, on the other hand, highlights the importance of press freedom and the right to access information, reinforcing the role of the media in holding the centres of power to account. I have changed my views and after completing this project, I now believe that it is ethical for newspapers to publish sensitive information when it serves the public interest and promotes the greater good. Only as long as it respects the fundamental ethical principles like respect for privacy, and the greater societal benefit. However, if publishing the sensitive information is only in the interest of the public, rather than the public interest then it should not be published.