KANTIAN ETHICS
Application of Kantian Ethics
Unlike with a utilitarian, a Kantian ethicist would approach the question through the lens of duty and moral principle. This approach is deontological, not consequentialist. Kantians follow a universal moral law called the Categorical Imperative and treat every person as an end not a means. There are three formulations of the Categorical Imperative.
The Formula of Universal Law
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"
This asks whether the principle behind the action could be universally applied without contradiction. Imagine if a newspaper follows the rule "It is acceptable to publish sensitive information if it interests the public even if it harms privacy." If this rule became universal, no one's privacy would be protected and people would live in constant fear of their personal details being exposed. Newspapers would constantly seek to publish gossip and private information just to get clicks and sell subscriptions. However, since privacy is important to people, a rule that automatically allows for its violation shouldn't be followed. A Kantian would propose a different rule, for example: "Sensitive information should only be published if it's necessary to prevent harm or expose serious wrongdoing". This rule can be universalised without contradiction because it protects both public interest and individual privacy. It ensures that information is only shared when it serves a genuine moral duty, and not merely for the purpose of entertainment. However, its application relies on judgement: what is "serious wrongdoing"? When is it necessary to sacrifice privacy to expose it?2.
The Formula of Humanity
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means"
This means we must always respect people as ends in themselves and never use them as a mere tool to achieve another goal. If newspapers publish private details simply to entertain the public and sell more digital subscriptions, they are treating individuals as a means rather than respecting their dignity. This would apply were a newspaper to publish a celebrity's medical record or a politician's personal struggles without moral justification. However, if the information exposes corruption, prevents harm, or serves justice, while still treating those affected as rational beings, then it would respect both sides. The public and the subjects of the newspapers' articles would be treated as ends, not means.
3. The Formula of Autonomy
"Act only so that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law."
Moral decisions should be made as if they were setting laws for a community of free and rational beings. People should act according to principles that all rational individuals could freely agree upon in a just society. Would free and rational citizens agree to a law that allows newspapers to publish any private information for any reason? Likely not, as it would make trust impossible, eliminate privacy and also make business very difficult as secrets would all be published. Rational people might agree to a rule that allows the publication of sensitive information only in cases where it prevents harm, exposes wrongdoing, or serves a vital public interest. This way they would know that their privacy would be safe in normal circumstances, but that sensitive information could be published if it allowed the prevention of crime, of fraud or to expose lies or hypocrisy of powerful people. A Kantian would therefore be expected to voluntarily follow this moral rule if he or she was a journalist.
How useful is Kantian Ethics in relation to publishing sensitive information?
Kantian Ethics is partially useful in addressing this issue. The Formula of Humanity ensures individuals are not treated as mere tools for public entertainment or generating clicks by protecting their privacy and dignity. The Formula of Universal Law prevents ethical decisions from being influenced by financial motives and provides clear moral principles for journalism.
However, Kantian Ethics is too rigid for many complex cases in modern journalism, as it demands absolute moral rules, whereas journalism often involves grey areas. Unlike utilitarianism, which considers the consequences of an action, Kantian Ethics focuses solely on whether an action follows a moral rule. It rejects hypothetical imperatives such as "If this increases readership, then it should be published". This is a very important problem in the real world because newspapers wouldn't survive if they can't make money.
Furthermore, Kantian Ethics struggles to account for nuances because it does not allow actions to be judged case-by-case. In journalism, there are situations where publishing sensitive information is justified and others where it is not, but Kantian ethics does not provide flexibility for such distinctions.
Finally, while the Formula of Humanity demands that people be treated as ends, this can be difficult to balance in journalism. Exposing corruption may be necessary, but doing so can still harm individuals, creating moral conflicts that it can't resolve.