Ethics & Morality in Photography

[jim]

Semantics are important to how you organise your knowledge of the world.

Witness Scotty using a dubious semantic distinction to make a dodgy moral point.

[James T]

Semantics are important to how you organise your knowledge of the world.

Witness Scotty using a dubious semantic distinction to make a dodgy moral point.

I don't think semantics are very important here.

I'd guess that everyone knew what Kiwi intended from this thread, and that this (and a discussion about semantics) wasn't it.

[Tannin]

I agree, James. In Scotty's defence, however, he was at least trying to tease out a cruical distinction which is vitally relevant to this whole discussion. As I understand his point, he was trying to distinguish between:

• Legal requirements regulating correct and incorrect behaviour
• Shared social beliefs about correct and incorrect behaviour
• Individual beliefs about correct and incorrect behaviour

Scotty was (incorrectly) using the term "morals" to indicate the third one, and the term "ethics" to indicate the second one. Most people would do the reverse. In fact, however, consulting a dictionary soon demonstrated (rather to my surprise) that the two terms are pretty much interchangable (outside of a discussion where precise particular meanings for these terms have been agreed in advance, of course).

With all that said, in general, it is normal to use "morals" to indicate social beliefs about behaviour ("it is a sin to eat pork") and "ethics" to indicate individual beliefs about behaviour ("I don't believe in eating meat"). Given that Scotty has now muddied the waters thoroughly by reversing these commonly accepted meanings, I don't think it is going to be easy to get this part of the discussion back on track from here.

[Scotty72]

^ Absolute, complete nonsense.

According to the Shorter Oxford, "Ethic" has three senses, (1) "relating to morals", (2) "treating of moral questions", and (3) "characterised by 'ethos' - which is defined as "the prevalent tone or sentiment of a people or community". It has, in other words, three meanings, all of them essentially the same as 'moral".

"Ethics" (plural) has further definitions, but we don't need to explore them here, they are similar and we have already blown this phoney distinction between "ethics" and "morals" completely out of the water.

I feel like singing...

'Mary, Mary quite contrary, how does your garden grow?'

You are referring to popular definitions. Often, many people just use incorrect assumptions (incl word meanings) without questioning it. The classic was about 90% of people believed the new millennium began on 1/Jan/2000 (another story).

Their is a distinct difference between the two words - which are not interchangeable.

Ethics are NOT not morals!

Morals are your personal beliefs that may be shared
Ethics are a system of beliefs that are developed for a profession, club, etc. based of guiding principals that, generally, are enforced.

EG. School teachers have a set of ethics that we MUST follow. The are no 'Teacher morals'
Doctors are required to follow the ethics of their profession - they are not supposed to follow their morals (even when they conflict)

In most jobs, if you act immorally (but, break no ethical standards) then, nothing will happen to you. Eg. passionately tongue kiss your cousin during your lunch hour and your boss may think you are seriously weird but, that would hardly be grounds for dismissal. However, kiss your new client then, your boss may well give you the boot (as dating clients is often a breach of ethics).

Their are many, many egs of where ethics and morals are totally different.

A uni lecture dating a 24 year old student is hardly immoral. 2 consenting adults = good luck. However, I would suggest it IS unethical.
Having an extra marital affair may well be immoral - but it is not unethical as it is noone else's business (outside of the 2 families)

They are clearly distinct

Ethics are codified - Hence code of ethics
Morals are personal (and easily altered to suit circumstances - especially when you get caught).

[Scotty72]

Anyway,

Back to the point.

Many photographers may have to moral objection to photoshopping the hell out of a photo to make it saleable even if it no longer portrays the truth.

But, I imagine it may not be ethical.

EG. There are a few online photo touch up services that allow you to submit a photo of your ugly, zitt-riddled child then, they will touch it up to make them look like Prince Charming.

Is that ethical? Well, I suppose if there is no code of practise about it, it is.

Is it moral? No, I find it sickening! However, a lot of people will argue.

See, Ethics are absolutes (or close) that we can all agree upon / accept in order to gain acceptance --- morals are these relative notions that are held only in our conscious / heart.

Scotty

[Tannin]

You are referring to popular definitions. Often, many people just use incorrect assumptions ....

Nonsense. I have cited an authoritative reference - indeed, the most authoritative source there is on the meanings of words in the English language.

You, on the other hand, are claiming the authority of a rather more charming but much less authoritative reference :

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Much as I love Alice Through the Looking Glass, we should not pretend that the Rev Dodgson's Humpty Dumpty has authority superior to that of the Oxford English Dictionary.

[Kym]

Warning: Stay on Topic!

For the purpose of this discussion, and due to the definitions in the OED, Ethics = Morals

[Tannin]

Hmmm ... I hear you Kym, but we need to be aware that we cannot have a sensible discussion on any topic unless we have agreed on the relevant terms.

[arthurking83]

..... is it ethical to use an iphone bird call application to call in birds in the wild

.....

How does the caller know the birds phone number?

Does the app have a listing of bird's numbers which you then select based on geographic proximity?

How does the bird answer their iPhone.
I would have thought that after only so many pecks at the screen with their pointy sharp and durable beaks, the glass would eventually scratch to the point of obscurity (at the least).

Is this also some kind of obscure, twisted dating service?
(is it legal?)


I dunno! .... it all sounds a bit strange to me.

[arthurking83]

Apologies for raising the issue again, but I think this(following) particular statement completely reinforces Tannin's objective.

......

In most jobs, if you act immorally (but, break no ethical standards) then, nothing will happen to you. Eg. passionately tongue kiss your cousin during your lunch hour and your boss may think you are seriously weird but, that would hardly be grounds for dismissal. However, kiss your new client then, your boss may well give you the boot (as dating clients is often a breach of ethics).

.....

if morals are based on a personal level, how can one act in an immoral manner?
All they are really doing is simply going against a previous belief they had. Are people not entitled to change their beliefs?(or is this now unethical ).

If morality is purely a personal level, then you simply only need to change your previous point of view(or belief) and any action to the contrary of what you previously believed is no longer an immoral act!
You won't be going against any else's beliefs or ethics .. because the morality of the issue is only defined on a personal level.

I think unless you are an idiot and maintain one set of beliefs and yet act in another manner, immorality can no exist in the real world(it is therefore some kind of hypothetical situation for philosophers to ponder).

On the other hand, morality as a concept would exist in the wild, as everyone would have a set of morals.
The simple act of changing your mind is still a legal entitlement.

[kiwi]

ibirds use iphones silly

[Mark L]

I'm intetested in a general discussion on morality & ethics in photography

I like the last two words of the quote

[zollo]

Is it ethical to present your audience with a glossed-up, unrealistic view of the world so that you can sell your pictures, and ignore the fact that you are distorting their view of reality and making them frustrated, unappreciative, and unhappy?

To see this graphically, watch any random TV series (yes, moving pictures, but the point still holds). The people in that series are, on average, a lot younger, slimmer, better-dressed and better looking than real people, their homes are better furnished, their cars are cars that most people can't afford. Result: most ordinary people think that they are too fat, too poor, too ugly, and well behind the eight-ball of the average. This is why people burn themselves out working two jobs and going on stupid diets and having pointless cosmetic surgery and all the rest of it. Simply, because our communicators (photographers and others) lie to us all the time.

Similarly, we photographers constantly strive to add more "pop" to our landscapes with too much saturation, clever multi-exposures, and a whole host of Photoshop tricks. We lie about what stuff looks like because it's an easy way to get our pictures noticed, and, over time, the cumulative effect of all our little lies is that the people who see our work (if they pay attention to it at all) wind up with an untrue picture of some fantasy world and, when they see the real world with their own eyes, it is pale and unattractive. Worse, they then feel impelled to "improve" it, and nearly everything you can do to a block of good, natural land to make it look more "photogenic" destroys a part of it. Nature is messy! But photographers like us pretend it isn't, and in consequence people don't understand it, and so they destroy it in a misguided attempt to "improve" it.

There is a fine line between presenting an attractive view of your subject, showing it in its best light on the one hand, and telling lies about it on the other hand. The ethical photographer thinks hard about this line quite often, and does his best to stay on the right side of it.

In my view, some of this is rubbish. a good landscape photographer will show you what they want you to see, via carefully selected and weighed composition. there may be a dirty great big coal mine just over the other side of the beautiful mountain and waterfall. in choosing to leave it out, are they lying to you? i think not. nothing unethical there, the mountain and waterfall are beautiful.


as for saying that over processing of landscapes (this in itself only an opinion) are unethical/immoral, I can only laugh...
photography is and can quickly become "art" or a personal interpretation of your experience in a landscape. Is there a code of ethics in art that says everything must be based solely and objectively on reality, and the artist should stay detached emotionally from the scene in front of them? I think not.

of course a caveat to this may be that the artist is claiming it to be "real" when it is not.

[kiwi]

What about photoshopping out a stray foot in a sport shot ?

What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ?

What about photoshopping in some additional hair for shane warne for a hair treatment commercial ?

[mrDooba]

What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ?

I thought PJs had their own rules to follow. I'm not sure what they are though....

[Tannin]

Zollo, with photography there is a special duty of care, over and above the duty of care that applies to (say) a written statement, or a sound recording, or a drawing. People generally believe that photographs have particular veracity - "seeing is believing" goes the saying. People trust photographs more than pretty much any other medium. That means that you, as the photographer, are in a position of special trust. Because of the enhanced ability you have to lie (i.e., because of your position of trust) it is especially important that you try your best to tell the truth.

-------------------------

Good questions, Kiwi!

What about photoshopping out a stray foot in a sport shot ? No intention to deceive, indeed, you are communicating the truth of what happened more clearly by altering the negative. Of course, there may be editorial rules preventing this, but they exist only to prevent abuse. The theory of your alteration is good.

What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ? Depends on your intent. Are you presenting a false picture of the reality? Or simply presenting the facts more clearly? Depends on circumstances.

What about photoshopping in some additional hair for shane warne for a hair treatment commercial ? Lie. No excuses.

[kiwi]

I wouldn't crop a foot for editorial use, everything else is fine

#2 scenario is based in quite a famous example couple of years ago where such a manipulated photo of Haiti post earthquake won a world press award then caused a huge controversy

#3 I agree

Remember the jumping fox nature shot last year ?

[kiwi]

This is another example of something that is troubling ethically

Warning, graphic photo is linked

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/03/29/...r-award-given/

[peterb666]

You may have noted with a recent UK event (and no doubt it has been happening here too), that there are no morals in press photography or in the press itself. It is all about making money, power, influence and manipulation. If you want to understand the lack of morals, just dig deeper in what you think may be the "truth".

This is another example of something that is troubling ethically

Warning, graphic photo is linked

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/03/29/...r-award-given/

[Tommo1965]

What about photoshopping out a stray foot in a sport shot ?

What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ?

What about photoshopping in some additional hair for shane warne for a hair treatment commercial ?

i think a photographer should use any tool at their disposal to get a image to where they want it to be.. personally I dont take photos to reflect real life....I want to add something of my own to the image..

but if its for a news paper or historical reference..then no to altering the taken shot IMO... particularly if its to the detriment of a individual