However, if the case involved the likes of Morgan Tsvangirai, often touted as the saviour of Zimbabwe against the ruinous dictatorship of Robert Mugabe, I would be otherwise inclined. As such, I would be applying utilitarian consequential ethics. If I thought the exposing of “the people’s candidate” would serious impair the development of the country and the lives of its citizens I would not think the selling of more newspapers or the adherence to my own journalistic rules to be the greater good. There could be the case made that if he has lied about this personal indiscretion then what other matters could he lie about, and so virtue ethics could be of use. By considering each case individually and applying the consequences of past experiences, the best decision would hopefully be made.

Perhaps in both cases – British and Zimbabwean – the seemingly de-ontological approach of the French media should be applied; politicians personal lives are just that and are not to be made public. The French press were aware of François Mitterand’s illegitimate child for years, but it was not until his funeral that her existence became general public knowledge. And in any case, the French public didn’t seem to care.

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.

Deontologically, Browne and Halberstam, perhaps should have acted to stop Thích Quảng Ðức, but that would only be if they were applying some personal, as Arnett referred, human rule that dictated one should let another person die needlessly. Certainly our own generally Judeo-Christian values here in the West would suggest that to be the case. However, if the men were acting as reporters rather than simply humans, then perhaps the rules are different. As reporters and photographers they are there to report on current affairs, not intervene or interfere; they should be passive bystanders. To have “kicked the can of gasoline away” would have been an uncalled for intervention – we assume Thích Quảng Ðức was carrying out the protest of his own free will – and therefore against the “rules” of journalism.

Cultural realism could also be applied here, as we here in the West do not necessarily hold the same values and ethics as the Buddhist monks in Vietnam do. Martyrdom in its real sense (rather than the melodramatic use to describe the ‘Metric Martyrs’ etc) is not something we are readily comfortable in modern Western society. We consider it to belong in another time and place. One need only look at how “suicide bombers” are reported. It is difficult for us to comprehend believing in something so strongly that one would be willing to take one’s own life, and do have stopped the protest would have been possibly culturally insensitive. If someone had made the same protest in say the US where there were a number of vocal protests against the war, I dare say someone would have doused them in water pretty sharpish, ethically justified or not.

So if they were right to not intervene, were they right to take the photo, and if so, were they right to publish it? I do believe they were right on all three accounts. Taking Kant’s rule based approach again, they were right to photograph the protest – they were there to report on the happenings in Vietnam and to have ignored this incident would have been against some form of journalistic rules. Taking a utilitarian approach, they were right to publish the photo – the greater good clearly being publishing details regarding the protest, rather than pandering to sensibilities.

Therefore I would have taken exactly the same actions as Browne et al, though I wholeheartedly agree with Arnett – a reporter and a human would act very differently, but that is because ultimately they adhere to different rules.

I think in the situation I would take the virtue ethics approach and do what I thought was right when I met the politician. It would be important to me to establish whether I believed that the politician had simply made a mistake or if this lie was indicative of a greater level of hypocrisy. The important point that I would wish to establish is whether I believed the man was likely to tell lies which would adversely affect the people of the country. This would determine my actions.

I also feel that this would be important in order to uphold the reputation of the Press Agency, thus taking a consequential apprach to this scenario is also beneficial. The consequences of continuing the advertising campaign, could, in the short term, be beneficial for the business (and indeed an egoist would argue that it is in their interests to continue publishing for this reason) but the long term ramifications would be entirely detrimental.

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.