Scenario 5 – The Photographer as vulture
The photo in this post is the ‘Pulitzer Prize’ winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The picture depicts a famine stricken young girl crawling towards a United Nations food camp located a kilometer away.
The vulture is waiting for the child to die so that it can eat her. No one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photograph was taken.
It is claimed that he did frighten the bird off however, and his newspaper carried a statement a week later that it believed the child made it to the feeding camp (but that she could not be traced).
Was the photographer correct in taking the picture, but not impacting on what happened, apart from apparently frightening the bird away? Some of his critics referred to him as being ‘as much a vulture as the bird itself’ Was the newspaper correct in publishing it? What advice should the editor have given to the photographer and should it have taken action against the photographer? Or was his action exemplary given he was employed only to take pictures, and not to save lives?
Refer to any appropriate ethical standpoints when explaining your attitude.
November, 22nd 2008 at 12:55 pm
A shocking photograph depicting the all to often result of the country’s extreme poverty stricken citizens in which the photographer, who incidently won a pulitzer for this, failed to act to help a helpless, desparate child in need of urgent care and attention. Kevin Carter took a deontoligical approach following strict rules rather than consequential. My view could be considered ethical subjectivism as I cannot understand why he would walk away from an innocent child in such obvious need of care when it wouldn’t have caused him any great deal of inconvenience or pain to help. However, relying on subjectivism would leave the argument open for the photographer to justify his actions as right. Although on a grander scale the photographer couldn’t have helped all the starving children, in the circumstances I prefer utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham’s approach that the right course of action would be the one that would minimize pain. This would be act utilitarianism which in journalism is not always best as it could lead to justification of normally unethical stories but this incident is exceptional. Besides, as a reader, I would far rather have read a follow up story where the photographer took the child to the food camp instead of leaving her to a slow and painful death, which the vulture represents in this controversial image.
November, 24th 2008 at 5:44 pm
I can’t believe that the photographer who took this did not do anything to help the dying child and left the scene immediately afterwards. While it is certainly a very strong image which symbolises the struggle that these people go through, that it no excuse.
In this instance he should have followed the de-ontological approach and followed his moral duty as a citizen and saved the child.
It terms of publishing the picture, I think that the paper was wrong. While ultimately they were trying to show the gravity of the situation in Third World Countries, all they have done is brought negative publicity upon themselves and made themselves look like vultures. I think that almost any reader would have been digusted to find out how the photographer behaved. I know that technically he was only doing his job, but I don’t think that this excuses his actions – he could have made a far better story for himself if he saved the girl and came out as a hero.
November, 27th 2008 at 3:23 pm
The implications that surround this picture make it very difficult to analyse. Not only is it likely that the girl in the picture tragically succumbed to starvation, but the photographer Kevin Carter fell into depression after winning the Pulitzer Prize and committed suicide.
The photographer’s job was to take pictures of the horrors that he was seeing and allow the world to see the seriousness of the situation in Sudan. This hopefully would spark the Western world into action, and there is no doubt that this picture had a profound effect in shaping the long term international response to the crisis.
Yet there is no doubt that Carter should have offered help to the girl. It is unrealistic to expect someone in the situation to individually help every starving person they meet when they are in this type of situation. However, the fact that this girl was on her own and about to become the prey of a wild animal meant that if I had been in this situation I would like to think I would have taken her to a place that at least allowed her some safety.
In relation to the New York Times, I think that they were completely correct in publishing the photograph. To use a cliché, a picture does paint a thousand words. Images like this one result in the worldwide publication of the atrocities that are unfortunately far too common in this world.
To conclude, I take a utilitarian approach in believing that it was right that this picture was taken and published. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the photographer should have abandoned this girl. Kevin Carter struggled to cope with the guilt that hit him when he realised what he should have done. In the madness of war and famine people seem to become immune to tragedy. This has to be taken as a factor in his decision, and he paid the ultimate price for his decision. Carter is now remembered by many only by an image and a song by the Manic Street Preachers, but it is photographers like him that helps to highlight the realities of this world.
December, 4th 2008 at 4:22 pm
This is a particularly difficult situation to analyse. I suppose, from a de-ontological point of view, one might say that Carter’s job was simply to follow the rules that were set out to him by his bosses. Supporters of this view would say that he did nothing more than follow orders.
A utilitarian perspective would suggest that Carter should have considered the consequence of leaving the child- it would do harm to her and there would be no benefit for anyone else.
Ultimately it believe that the correct thing for Carter to have done would have been to adopt the utilitarian approach to the situation.
However (and it’s a BIG however) the situation is made rather more complicated than that given that shortly over a year after the photograph was taken, Carter was dead. Whether or not the guilt about this photo was really the leading factor in his decision to take his own life nobody will ever know, however it seems possible that Carter was in an extreme psychological condition at the time of taking the photo. If this were the case then arguably it is wrong for us to attempt to impose our ideas of morality upon him.
Added to this is the fact that none of us has been in a situation like Carter’s. Throughout the course of history there have been countless examples of people failing to act in what we would deem the correct manner when they are surrounded by death. In this situation, faced with evidence of the extremities of man’s inhumanity to man, perhaps all notions of morality go out of the window.
All that I can say on Carter is that I hope that, in his situation, I would have the courage to save the child however. I am not convinced that it is appropriate to comment on a situation that we could not possibly imagine being in.
December, 7th 2008 at 3:34 pm
In terms of ethics, yes take the photo but don’t just leave the scene immediately afterwards! Who would do that? The child was dying, crawling to a UN food camp and Carter just up and walked away. Just because his job was purley to photograph the situation didn’t give him the right to abandon all morals and walk away.
It could be said he was only following the rules (deontological) doing what he was supposed to and that’s all, but that in no way excuses him leaving a dying child.
A utilitarian approach to this situation in my view would have made more sense, and if I was ever in any situation such as this in my career it would be what I would want to adopt.
I feel that the image needed to be taken and needed to be published, it shows the horror of a 3rd world country, that children who are meant to be loved, cared for and protected are nothing more than food for the vultures. But, once it was taken, Carter should have intervened and helped her.
In my opinion, I agree with “the photographer as vulture” tagline, he preyed on this little girl for his own gain.
December, 10th 2008 at 9:25 pm
I am not questioning whether the guy suffered afterwards as, for whatever reason quite possibly guilt, he clearly did but that does not affect the decision made at that moment in time when it really mattered. Hindsight may have altered his feelings about his decision but that doesn’t change how he acted.
December, 11th 2008 at 8:22 pm
This is obviously a very emotive issue. It is hard to judge a man who came to such an unhappy end himself. We cannot possibly imagine what would have gone through his mind.
The photograph itself is a powerful image depicting the suffering of the child, and the newspaper was correct to print it. It conforms with the social responsibility role of the media to communicate the issues of this situation to a much wider audience.
The sad outcome of the image is much harder to justify. It goes against most people’s personal values to leave a child in that state.
From a de-ontological point of view he was simply following his role as a photographer; that is to report and portray a message but not to interfere. However, no ethical standpoint can be so cut and dried as to ignore personal feelings and situations.
The consequences of his actions in leaving the child should have been taken into consideration. An act utilitarianist approach would state that the photographer would have minimised the negative outcomes of this if he had considered the situation individually without abiding simply to the rules of his professional responsibilities. He did not create greater happiness for a greater number of people by leaving this poor child to fend for herself.
December, 12th 2008 at 12:26 pm
I just can’t agree with the utter condemnation of a man that none of us have ever met. We only know the bare facts of the story, certainly not enough to be able to judge a stranger.
January, 19th 2009 at 12:21 am
We may not be able to judge the stranger, or his mental state at the time, but we can judge his actions. There are plenty of people throughout history whom we may feel justified in judging due to actions taken. Clearly the personal impact on Kevin Carter from this tragedy was inconceivable, and he had to live with the guilt of what he did, or at least the condemnation of others.
I do not agree with people jumping on the bandwagon of blaming someone else for the death of this child when we are all guilty of doing nothing – of buying newspapers and looking at pictures as horrific as this one and going on with our own lives – but we have to admit that it was wrong.
I do not believe that any of the ethical theories we have heard about condone this action:
Utilitarianism – initially you could believe that the ‘greater good’ would be to allow the child to die and for the death to spur people into action, but what is the likelihood of this happening?
Maximum happiness would have been achieved by Kevin Carter taking the photograph and saving the child. He would then have had the backing of the public, and could have taken numerous photographs highlighting atrocities.
Virtue ethics – the photographer did not use his own personal wisdom and virtues in this scenario – wisdom would have told him his actions would come back to haunt him, that the child would die even if he scared away the vulture, and that he would suffer personally as a consequence of doing nothing in this situation.
Consequentialism – easy: the consequences were horrendous for both photographer and child, and the public’s ensuing hatred for the photographer and the scandal following it doubtless detracted from the subject of the picture and the suffering of people just like this child.
De-ontological rule theory – This man may have been doing his job according to rule theory – so maybe this theory does apply, but Kant’s code of ethics would surely put the sanctity of life and man’s duty to fellow ‘man’ before duty to a newspaper, I find it hard to believe otherwise.
No matter whether he caused the situation or not, this man treated this child as fodder for the photograph. This child did not want to be a symbol for starving children in Sudan, this child wanted food, and deserved to live.
So whilst I believe we can empathize with the photographer, I sympathise more with the child – and although it is never right to ‘throw stones’ from a theoretical high-horse, we naturally recognise unethical actions in others, and this was an unethical action.
The editor should have advised his journalist that a backlash was inevitable, and that he had done the wrong thing in ignoring the plight of the child – making it harder to publish the photo without the attention being diverted from the famine to his lack of action.
January, 19th 2009 at 11:22 pm
Whilst in the case of the Buddhist monk’s protest I wholeheartedly agree with the photographers for acting as passive bystanders, I would not able to apply a purely deontological approach in this situation.
Deontologically, Carter was there to take photos and therefore should and did take the picture. In taking the picture he highlighted the desperate plight of the girl and many like her in Sudan. Whilst he was right to take the photo, he lack of action after having done so – other than supposedly scare away the vulture – is ethically questionable if one were to apply a utilitarian/consequential approach, as I would in this case.
A consequetial approach would both allow for the taking of the photo and of saving the girl. The consequences of taking the photo were the highlighting of the situation in Sudan. Without such a striking image perhaps some people would not have taken notice of the situation and perhaps by becoming aware of it they were then led to donate to charity, put pressure on their government etc. But clearly the greater good here is not just that of bringing the plight of the girl and her compatriots to the wider world, but in ensuring the survival of the girl herself. Carter could have acted somewhat passively by photographing the girl and the vulture but also after doing so, carried her to the safety of the food camp.and in doing having his cake and eating it; the prize would still have been won, the girl would have been saved and backlash averted.
I understand the issue in suggesting he did this – he is there to report, not to offer humanitarian aid – but clearly this a rather extreme case. Unlike in the case of the monk, this child was not willfully subjecting herself to a certain death, and Carter had a clear opportunity to have helped her.
Clearly in this case he should have applied virtue ethics, which as a seasoned photographer, one would assume he could have. Virtue ethics possibly could have indicated to him that his actions could have had dire negative consequences, and that he could both take the photo as a good photographer should have as well as saving the girl, as a good human should have, and in doing having his cake and eating it; the prize would still have been won, the girl would have been saved and backlash averted. To say whether this would have ultimately averted Carter’s suicide is far too presumptive – one does not know what else might have lead him to carry out such drastic action – and is ultimately not the issue for debate.
If I had been Carter, I would have applied a utilitarian approach allowing me to take the photo, which I wholeheartedly believe should have been taken and published, and acted in the greater good for my fellow man by taking the girl to camp, rather than shoo-ing the bird away only for it to probably come back later.