Ethical Theories In Mass Shootings

In 2018 alone, there have been 148 mass shootings according to the mass shooting tracker organization. Since columbine? I can only imagine. For my analysis I will discuss three possible ethical perspectives from the point of view whether or not news outlets should broadcast information about the perpetrator in regards to mass shootings. The three ethical point of views I will use to explain my ultimate opinion are utilitarianism, pluralistic theory of values, and care based ethics.
Utilitarianism is a concept that focuses on the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. It revolves around usefulness and benefit while focusing on a larger population. It is highly outcome based so to do a thorough analysis one has to weigh the outcomes

from both a positive and a negative standpoint. To begin I will first discuss possible positive outcomes of whether or not one should broadcast shooter information and then finish with the negatives to give a well rounded point of view.
My first positive outcome is that possible shooters would stop all together because of the notoriety that comes with their names being broadcast everywhere. The first major school shooting, Columbine, created a sort of cult following. This lead to a sense of becoming “famous” for enacting these horrible crimes. In a recent example, the Parkland school shooter recorded videos prior to his crime stating that everyone will know who he is by the end of it. This is a huge problem in terms of projecting pictures and information about shooters everywhere. It gives them a sense of entitlement and to be remembered in history. However, by not giving into their need for fame and notoriety, shootings will since diminish.
Another positive outcome is that the mass shooting average would be brought down due to the fact that no one is claiming to fame from these crimes. This ties in with the above point as due to the fact of lack of publicity it would lead to less shooters and thus leading to a downward slope on the current increasing average of mass shootings.
Lastly, citizens would feel more safe knowing another attack won’t be coming due to the above. As stated about utilitarianism, it is about the large population as a whole. Citizens everywhere would feel okay to go to school, or work, or the mall or movies without feeling threatened for their lives.
The one unfortunate discrepancy with utilitarianism is the fact that one can not predict the future, which is what the perspective holds its basis on. This leads to my first negative point. If one can not see into the future, then what is the proof that this would work all together? By making claims of notoriety adding to a shooters motive could perpetuate alternative reasonings to committing a mass crime. This being said, laws are in place for a reason. People break them all the time. By not broadcasting information about a shooter, would that really stop anything? If not, then what is the public possibly losing? This leads to my next point.
Another negative of not broadcasting all information about a mass shooter is that it can undercut the publics right to be fully informed about events. Not only would this effect the public, but the first amendment right towards the freedom of the press. As a citizen in the United States, we have every right to know what is going on at all times and be presented with the truth and facts. By hiding certain information of something as large as a mass shooting can lead to public unrest and concern as well as dismantling the rights of the press all together.
Lastly, by not fully publishing all information of a mass shooting this can lead to difficulty in terms of coming up with policies of prevention. In a quick explanation, the people come up with ideas, these ideas can be brought up to politicians, and they make the moves to get said ideas passed. If the people aren’t told everything that happens or who exactly is committing these crimes and why they are, then how can the government as a whole look to prevention of another mass crime happening.
In short, a utilitarian point of view works solely for the needs of a large population. Whether one is for or against the display of shooter information, the minority is affected by the end result. This is important to consider as one person will always remain unsatisfied with the end result. This leads me into the next ethical perspective: Pluralistic Theory of Values. This perspective is all about moral responsibilities in terms of each person and the greater whole of a society. W. D. Ross created the original theory of values with seven points, then later two more were added. These points cover fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, self improvement, negative duty, beneficence, veracity and nurture. However, I will choose a few to discuss as not all of them pertain to this case. The ones I will talk about are reparation, justice, negative duty, and veracity.
So what does reparation mean in terms of the pluralistic theory of values? It means to make good on previous harmful acts. This could actually tie in as well with fidelity (keeping your promise) as one could be promising change after choosing to release or not release specific information. Reparation is an important value to remember in terms of this case because it is promising to make good on harmful instances that have occurred in the past. In all, by changing the media into not releasing specific information this could be making reparations due to the fact of mass shootings happen on the basis of notoriety. This leads into the second value to discuss because what if not everyone is satisfied with the ultimate decision?
Justice, in terms of the pluralistic theory of values, is all about equitably distributing happiness. Are all citizens satisfied with the choice made? This is kind of similar to my earlier point made during my topic of utilitarianism. If there is going to be one minority not in favor of a certain side, then how does one go about making the decision on what to do? What is best for the people?
The second biggest value in terms to this case is negative duty. This is the moral responsibility to not harm others. Obviously this should be more towards those that commit these atrocities. However, does reporting or not reporting harm the community? The victims? the families? What would it entail on both sides to spread the information or not. Would it make the people angry, by broadcasting the killers face everywhere? Or in turn, call for a demand on justice. This begins to look into the insights of human beings as a whole. We wish not to harm others, but would spreading the face of the killer rather than the victims do more harm than good? It is important to share stories of the victims rather than of the perpetrator.
The biggest value of this point of view is veracity, or telling the truth. This is where the opinion can get skewed. As a journalist and news outlet, you have to preach the hard-hitting truths. Is it taking away rights to not share everything? By broadcasting the shooters face everywhere, the country is given the truth to the matter. However, as stated above, how much harm is that actually doing?
The issue with the Pluralistic Theory of Values is that the duties all conflict. For the majority of my explanation of my points and why I chose them they all seemed to work seamlessly. However, the last point is what halts the entire process of thinking in this way. Reparation, justice, and negative duty all can bounce off of each other in terms of focusing on the greater good for all of a society. However, truth telling is where the problems arise. Yes, according to this theory, it would work best to not shell out the information on the perpetrator. In contrary though, truth telling is what is taught day one as a journalist. One must present the facts on all sides as this is what reliable news sources do. At the end of the day, yes it could cause more harm, but having a lack of trust between citizen and media would be even worse.
The last ethical perspective I will be discussing is the care based ethics point of view.

This is pretty much golden rule or empathy based and to do what is best for others in a given situation. This being said, is it the responsibility of the media to promote the golden rule or to record life as it happens? On one hand, the media could dismiss all knowledge of said perpetrator and promote the well being of others in terms of an empathetic point of view. On the other hand, is it not important to establish a sense of factual evidence and details from an event that occurred? Citizens should be informed, however, from a care based ethics point of view which promotes the strict foundation of doing good unto others, the best answer would be to not publish facts and pictures to keep the feelings of a said society at bay.
The problem with care based ethics is the fact that one can not predict what someone else wants. This seems to be a highlight in terms of every concept discussed so far. However this does ring true. Just because one person would find it upsetting or harmful to see the face of the person who killed a family member, what is to be said about those who not deem it as upsetting? Who is being accounted for as to what is offensive or what is not okay for others to

see?
So after thinking from the point of view of each ethical perspective my opinion and conclusion is that we do need to stop publishing information about the perpetrators to an extent. I highly believe that a common reason for mass shootings is to gain publicity after the fact and to remain talked about after they are gone. My personal opinion is to completely do away with their name and their face. Let society forget who did it, and promote the remembrance of victims. However, I do think motivations should be broadcasted. It is important to know the “why’s” of these killing sprees because of a possibility of prevention. As some ethical point of views above established both outcomes I agree with some of the points. For instance, from the pluralistic theory of values I brought up the point of truth telling. Yes, some information needs to be shared such as the motivation. However, broadcasting the name and face isn’t skewing any sort of truth. The best option is to simply let the killer die in a figuratively unmarked grave.