Taste vs Ethics (week 8)

This week we focused on differentiating between taste and ethics in the media. To the untrained eye, the difference between these is hazy. To those who inform the public, whether it be through either advertising or news, the ability to tell the difference is crucial.

Taste, by definition, is subjective and thus one cannot judge an aspect of the media on these grounds. An advertisement should therefore be judged in terms of ethics. Now we are getting philosophical; what is good and what is bad? 

There are three approaches to this. First there is deontology. Basically, this ethical paradigm defines ‘goodness’ as following the rules. This can easily be applied to the media; if it breaks the rules of advertising set in place then it is bad, and if not then it is fine. In my experience, philosophy has never been so simple. The codes regarding the ethics of media output include the MEAA (Media, Entertainment and Arts) code, the PRIA (Public Relations Institute of Australia) code and the AFA (Advertising Federation of Australia) code.

Perhaps the most famous approach to ethics is consequentialism; the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Personally I find that consequentialism’s flaws lie in the fact that the end always justifies the means, and that the concept of the ‘greatest good’ can easily be used to disempower minority groups.

The final approach is virtue ethics, which espouses the idea that ‘goodness’ (i.e happiness) comes from displaying certain virtues. These virtues consist of courage, justice, temperance and prudence.

Taste as a Tool of Marketing Enterprise 

The subjective nature of ‘taste’ makes it a versatile tool to be exploited at the discretion of advertisers. Many marketeers aim for the cusp between the realms of ‘bad taste’ and ‘unethical’. This generates just enough outrage for programs like A Current Affair to come running, mouths drawling, like hyenas to a carcass, consequently maximising the value of the advertisement. This manoeuvre is usually executed by employing a tactless innuendo or two.

 A tasteless tactic: even by adding these images to this blog, I am contributing to the mammoth value of these premeditatedly poor-taste ads. 

Evaluating Ethics

Ethics can sometimes be easy to assess. The above example could not be made any simpler; it advertises a genuinely unethical concept.  Taste doesn’t even enter into the equation; no matter what ethical paradigm you employ, displaying this ad is quite simply immoral.  It is rarely this easy, though.

Crossing the line between taste and ethics does not necessarily need to come from the subject matter. A perfectly legitimate product or service can be advertised in an unethical way:

Life insurance: unethical or just plain bad taste?, Vogue: unethically in good taste or ethically poor taste? Animal rights: a reasonable and ethical message or a tasteless and insensitive analogy? 

When a complex issue of ethics comes into question, it comes down to personality. Some will be offended by the above advertisements, and some will be perfectly fine with them. Taking a consequentialist perspective, what really needs to be considered is if the majority of viewers will be offended.

 In the above situation, I would say a significant number of views would indeed be offended. Our society has no ethical problem with life insurance, Vogue magazine or animal rights activists. The ethical conundrum in these ads comes from the way the ideas are portrayed. People probably won’t be too offended by the odd sexual innuendo, but describing a parent’s death as a family’s  ‘prince charming’, embodying feminine beauty and perfection as a malnourished model and likening my sausage sandwich to Hitler’s terrible acts of genocide is a different question entirely.   

Evaluating taste against ethics is a challenging but important skill for anyone who contributes to the media. It can mean the difference between a risqué and humorous innuendo in an effective advertisement, and a message that offends an audience of thousands that deserve the right to enjoy the media without such confrontation.