COMM 280 (Ethics in Communications) - Media and Celebrity Death

 Introduction

The case study entitled Celebrity Death in the Media (Williams & Stroud, 2020) discusses the context of a controversial tweet after the unexpected death of the NBA superstar Kobe Bryant. In January 2020, Bryant died in a helicopter crash. While many fans and media outlets expressed shock over Bryant’s death and appreciation for all his philanthropic efforts through his life, a journalist at the Washington Post named Felicia Sonmez tweeted an article from 2016 which recounted Bryant’s rape accusation from 2003. Bryant’s accuser ultimately settled out of court and no jury found him guilty of rape, however Sonmez wanted to seize on the moment to add to the national conversation about rape victims who are silenced by powerful people as part of the #MeToo movement. This essay will first compare and contrast the values on display in this case, including whether speaking ill of the recent deceased is taboo or not. It will then discuss a few principles journalists may consider following when reporting deaths of notable public figures who may have been surrounded by controversy.

Media Values and Taboo of Speaking Ill of Dead

The context of Sonmez’s tweet is significant in understanding why she tweeted it in the aftermath of Bryant’s death. In the middle of the #MeToo movement (Brittain, 2023), in 2018, Sonmez shared her own story of being sexually abused by her former colleague Jon Kaiman (Harris, 2019). She came forward with her story after another woman told her story of suffering similar abuse at the hand of Kaiman. At the time Sonmez told her story, Kaiman was employed by the Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times initiated an investigation into Kaiman after which he resigned from the newspaper. Unfortunately, this was not the end for Sonmez. In the following months there were counter-stories which attempted to cast doubt and bad faith motivations on Sonmez. One podcaster went so far as to state Sonmez had weaponized “female vulnerability” (Harris, 2019). Sonmez argues that for the sexual assault victim, the on-going trauma and defense of her reputation is emotionally draining and that she must constantly assert her voice.

Almost two years after telling her own story, Sonmez witnessed broad media adoration for an arguably (although not legally) accused rapist (Bryant) who had just died in a helicopter crash. To Sonmez, this adulation was repulsive, and she simply wanted to temper the sentiment and build on the #MeToo movement which was still on-going during this time. To put the timeline in context, Jeffrey Epstein was arrested (sex trafficking of minors) six months before Bryant died (Sancton, 2022). In brief, the value on display by Sonmez was to provide the full picture, story and context of a person’s life. To her, she felt the strong rape accusations Bryant had faced in 2003 ought to be discussed amongst all the other deeds from his life. Other journalists felt Sonmez’s tweet about Bryant’s actions from 2003 was ill-timed due to his death (Williams & Stroud, 2020).

From a utilitarian perspective, some like Sonmez argue that all is fair when speaking of the dead. To her, all actions from Bryant’s life are fair game regardless of when people discuss his life (at the time of his death or when he is alive). What matters is that the entire story is told, so the utility of a person’s life can be judged. However, some contend (Sackville, 2019) that speaking ill of the dead is immoral most likely because people don’t want others to speak ill of them when they die. But Sackville goes on to note the life record of the deceased ought to be told wholly and correctly, as in the case of Michael Jackson’s life, with regard to people having believed he molested children. In fact, on the very day Michal Jackson died, the New York Times (Barnes, 2009) published an online article of his death and offered an obituary of him, in which the author bluntly noted Jackson’s strange behavior and how he was accused and indicted for molesting children. Perhaps social media has changed between 2009 and 2020, but it seems there was no similar outrage at this author speaking ill of the recently dead Michael Jackson in 2009.

Ethical Principles for Media to Consider When Reporting on Deaths

In contrasting the reporting of the deaths of Bryant and Jackson along with the controversial aspects of their lives, perhaps the difference is in the tone in which they were represented. In 2009 when Jackson died, social media did not have the size and instant dialogue which those platforms hold today and a few years ago in 2020. Journalists had to ponder and consider what they would write before publicizing it. However, by 2020, reporting of celebrity deaths could be done instantaneously and immediately shared and commented on. Therefore, in Bryant’s death, news of his death was reported immediately, and commentary of his life was instantaneous. Sonmez was another voice which did not stop and consider before publishing.

Besides tone and consideration, journalists and media outlets must be weary and guard against sensationalism (Forward Pathway, 2024). Much of the news and content on social media today is driven by how many clicks and shares an article or post can get. The importance of sensationalizing takes priority over all other ethical and journalistic integrity standards. While Sonmez may have been trying to add context to the debate, there was a bit of sensationalism and edginess to her tweet.

Conclusion

In sum, the reporting of the death of Bryant and Sonmez’s tweet offer an opportunity to discuss the competing values held by the public and various journalists. It also noted how the taboo of speaking ill of the dead may not really be a taboo, but rather it is the tone and discourse of reporting controversial aspects of a person’s life. Therefore, journalists must consider tone and guard against sensationalism. 

References

Barnes, B. (2009, June 26). A Star Idolized and Haunted, Michael Jackson Dies at 50. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html?ref=obituaries&_r=0 

Brittain, A. (2023, March 27). Me Too movement. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Me-Too-movement 

Forward Pathway. (2024, October 27). Ethical Controversies in Celebrity Death Reporting - Forward Pathway. Forward Pathway. https://www.forwardpathway.us/ethical-controversies-in-celebrity-death-reporting

Harris, L. (2019, November 6). Correcting the record. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/criticism/felicia-sonmez-metoo.php 

Sackville, K. (2019, March 5). Why is it still so taboo to speak ill of the dead? The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/why-is-it-still-so-taboo-to-speak-ill-of-the-dead-20190304-p511o9.html 

Sancton, J. (2022, September 29). #MeToo Five Years Later: A Timeline of Allegations, Accountability and Activism. The Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/metoo-five-years-timeline-allegations-accountability-activism-1235228661/

Williams, K., & Stroud, S. R. (2020, October 5). Celebrity Death in the Media - Center for Media Engagement - Center for Media Engagement. Mediaengagement.org. https://mediaengagement.org/research/celebrity-death-in-the-media/

COMM 280 (Ethics in Communications) - Greenwashing

 Introduction

The case study entitled It Ain’t Easy Being Green (Madureira et al., 2023) provides examples of companies which support the environment and ones which seem to be greenwashing. Essentially, the term greenwashing describes companies which are not entirely ethical or honest in the way they are carrying out their environmental duties. This essay will further elaborate on this definition and describe ethical conflicts companies face when dealing with protecting the environment and achieving corporate objectives. It will then suggest principles for companies to improve their environmental ethical stance. Lastly it will offer how Windex could apply these principles in their specific ad campaign.

Greenwashing and Conflict in Ethical Values

Pizzetti et al. (2021) frame the problem of how companies address environmental responsibility demands issued by governments. In response to these demands, some companies earnestly change and become more responsible. However, others do not change their practices and only change superficially in order to appear more environmentally friendly. In brief, companies who greenwash only talk the talk and do not walk the walk. Another form of greenwashing is when “companies use their suppliers as scapegoats for their own shortcomings” (Pizzetti et al., 2021, p. 22). The fundamental problem of greenwashing is the degree of honesty and transparency a company demonstrates. While the public may expect some ambiguity in advertising, those companies which take excessive liberty in their communications are taking more credit for positive practices than they should.

Perhaps the main ethical conflict in values companies face is balancing the goals of maximizing profits for shareholders, pensioners and other dependents with the demands and costs of implementing practices to improve the environment. With every effort to improve their environmental stance, costs eat into revenue which impacts the livelihoods of those who depend on company profits. In sum, the main ethical conflict is determining the right approach to meet the demands for both shareholders and government mandates to protect the environment.

While some companies genuinely improve the environment, most customers won’t be able to objectively discern if the company is truly helping or hurting the environment. To that end, companies should use agreed upon standards to measure their net impact on the environment and steward to that number in an effort to be more transparent for consumers.

Carbon Footprint

The most widely accepted standard for measuring the environmental impact of a business or even consumer is the carbon footprint. The Encyclopædia Britannica (Selin, 2013) defines it as direct emissions from activities like fossil-fuel combustion in manufacturing, heating, and transportation, along with the emissions generated to produce the electricity used for goods and services consumed. Similar to the concept of utilitarianism, the assumption is if each consumer (either a person or a business) reduces its carbon footprint, then the collective environmental impact of the world is lowered.

As the carbon footprint standard is more widely adopted, studies (Schleich & Alsheimer, 2024) have shown that some consumers are willing to directly pay for carbon offsets as well as provide patronage to those businesses who are improving the environment. Consequently, more consumers will begin demanding businesses calculate and disclose their carbon footprint. As more businesses comply, consumers will be better positioned to make informed buying choices.

Reporting and Disclosure

In the past, carbon footprint accounting may have been difficult to calculate and report. There was no widely accepted consensus on metrics nor methodologies. However, after years of trial and error and alignment between countries, the collective work of governments has produced standards, and now new third-party solutions can be deployed on a broad scale. As recently as November 2024, the market is producing ways for businesses to track and report their carbon footprint (CarbonChain has received third-party validation for its latest Corporate Carbon Footprint Accounting and Reporting Methodology and Product Carbon Footprint Accounting and Reporting Methodology, 2024). In this specific example, CarbonChain is a pioneer in the arena by offering a platform which supports businesses and manufacturers by enabling them to calculate and report on their carbon footprint.

Pivots for Windex

In the case study (Madureira et al., 2023), Windex was accused of greenwashing because they claimed their bottles were made of 100% recycled plastic from the ocean, when in fact a good portion of the recycled plastic was not retrieved from the ocean. In an effort to avoid being perceived as greenwashing, perhaps Windex could leverage tools like CarbonChain to report Windex’s carbon footprint number. Therefore, rather than focusing on a specific area of the environment (e.g. removing plastics from the ocean), they could simply report on the net impact of their product on the environment and whether it is decreasing or increasing.

Conclusion

In sum, greenwashing occurs when companies’ words do not align with their environmental actions, especially when they claim they are taking action to support the environment but in fact are not. Standards and tools exist, such as measuring a carbon footprint with technology like CarbonChain, which, if deployed, could help companies become more honest and transparent in their efforts to avoid being perceived as a company which greenwashes. 

References

CarbonChain has received third-party validation for its latest Corporate Carbon Footprint Accounting and Reporting Methodology and Product Carbon Footprint Accounting and Reporting Methodology. (2024, Nov 11). PR Newswire http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fwire-feeds%2Fcarbonchain-has-received-third-party-validation%2Fdocview%2F3126705741%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289 (2024). In Canada NewsWire. PR Newswire Association LLC.

Madureira, K., Williams, K., & Stroud, S. R. (2023, December 7). It ain’t Easy Being Green - Center for Media Engagement - Center for Media Engagement. Mediaengagement.org. https://mediaengagement.org/research/it-aint-easy-being-green/ 

Pizzetti, M., Gatti, L., & Seele, P. (2021). Firms Talk, Suppliers Walk: Analyzing the Locus of Greenwashing in the Blame Game and Introducing ‘Vicarious Greenwashing.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 170(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2 

Schleich, J., & Alsheimer, S. (2024). The relationship between willingness to pay and carbon footprint knowledge: Are individuals willing to pay more to offset their carbon footprint if they learn about its size and distance to the 1.5 °C target? Ecological Economics, 219, 108151-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108151 

Selin, N. E. (2013). Carbon Footprint. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-footprint

COMM 280 (Ethics in Communications) - Journalism and Activism

Introduction

The case study entitled Can Journalists also be Activists (O’Malley Gleim et al., 2022) showcases a number of perspectives regarding the topic of whether journalists should be impartial or partial to a particular cause or perceived injustice. While all journalists have values which align with or go against the values of their audience, perhaps the most important set of values all journalists should have are honesty, providing the full context of the story and acknowledging when they depart from objective reporting and begin subjective activism.

Conflicts in Ethical Values

Traditionally, journalists have not been activists (O’Malley Gleim et al., 2022). At least in the United States, journalists have firstly aimed for impartiality in an effort to avoid being perceived as compromised by one side of a story. A free press in the United States and western countries, acts as a counterbalance to centralized, powerful governments and can hold not only governments, but large institutions accountable for their behavior. In order to maintain credibility and to be a trusted source of information for the public, journalists have generally followed the code of ethics outlined by the organization The Radio, Television, and Digital News Foundation (RTDNF), which states “Journalism places the public’s interests ahead of commercial, political and personal interests. Journalism empowers viewers, listeners and readers to make more informed decisions for themselves; it does not tell people what to believe or how to feel” (“Code of Ethics,” 2015). The RTDNF further states, explicitly, that truth, accuracy and facts take priority above all other values. Any type of slanting of information or prevention of full disclosure violates the trust of the public. 

However, when personal values of journalists take priority over total objectivity, they become activists first. Some journalists, “have argued that attempting to prioritize objectivity over justice only leads to privileging oppressive views” and that in some cases, they should take such a hardline stance as assuming “there are not two sides” to a story (O’Malley Gleim et al., 2022, p. 2). In views such as these, the subjective ethical value takes priority over the value of objective reporting. When the public expects objective reporting of circumstances, context and facts, but instead is told there is only one side to a story, the value of “truth and accuracy above all” (“Code of Ethics,” 2015) takes a back seat.

While activism may be allowed and is often expected in today’s culture, complete honesty in reporting and providing the full context of a particular issue ought to be the gold standard. Once these criteria have been met, a journalist may then delineate where objectivity ends and when opinion and activism begin.

Honesty in Reporting

For journalists, honesty in their reporting ought to be paramount. Any deceptive editing or non-disclosure of key facts and ideas would be considered a violation of the rule of honesty. Some journalists (Gordon, et al., 2011) go so far as to contend all forms of deception for attaining the facts should be forbidden. For example, ABC news producers lied on their job applications to be hired on at Food Lion, in order to obtain footage of tainted food. Eventually a jury awarded Food Lion a verdict against ABC. While some of these rulings were overturned on appeal, the case has underscored the need for journalists to always maintain the highest degree of honesty. The author rightly notes that if a reporter crosses one ethical line, what other infractions would they commit in their quest for a scoop? “Assault? Sexual favors? Murder, to make available information that would ‘save society?’” (2011, p. 521).

Providing the Full Context

Context for a story plays a significant role in ensuring honesty reigns supreme. Reporting mere facts, without providing the full context, is a form of dishonesty and one which may frequently be used by activists in order to advance a desired goal. Gordan, et al. succinctly note that “Journalists who provide as much truthful information as is relevant, and report the material in context, serve the public well and need not worry about additional ethical concerns” (2011, p. 107). By providing the context of quotes, actions and events, the entire story is told and retains the respect of the reader and public.

Demarcating Objective Reporting and Subjective Activism

Activism in journalism changes minds and pushes boundaries. However, if an activist journalist truly wants to sway the public, rather than simply reporting to like-minded people, they must not only maintain a high standard of honesty, but also be clear in their intentions. Two media and communications researchers recently noted strategies for modern media organizations to follow with regard to activism. “These [strategies] include self‐reflection on how journalism itself might change through transparency efforts and how it explains the value of journalistic standards to audiences and provides them with insight into editorial operations” (Maurer & Nuernbergk, 2022, p. 2). Unless activist journalists follow some form of disclosure about their activism, they will continue to be minimized and dismissed by a discerning public.

Conclusion

In sum, all journalists hold values that may align with or differ from those of their audience. However, the most essential values journalists should uphold are honesty, presenting the full context of a story, and openly acknowledging when they shift from objective reporting to subjective activism. If they hold to these standards, they will maintain credibility and more importantly, have a greater chance achieving their activist objectives. 

References

Gordon, A. D., Kittross, J. M., Merrill, J. C., Babcock, W. A., Dorsher, M., Armstrong, J. A., Gade, P. J., Newton, J. H., Sheehan, K., & Singer, J. B. (2011). Honesty in Reporting. In Controversies in Media Ethics (3rd ed., pp. 518–522). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203829912-29

Maurer, P., & Nuernbergk, C. (2022). Journalism, Activism, and Social Media: Exploring the Shifts in Journalistic Roles, Performance, and Interconnectedness. Media and Communication (Lisboa), 10(3), 1-. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5984

O’Malley Gleim, K., Williams, K., & Stroud, S. R. (2022, October 31). Can Journalists also be Activists? - Center for Media Engagement - Center for Media Engagement. Mediaengagement.org. https://mediaengagement.org/research/can-journalists-also-be-activists/

“Code of Ethics.” (2015, June 11). Radio Television Digital News Foundation. Available at: https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_code_of_ethics

COMM 280 (Ethics in Communications) - Ethical Perspectives in Communication

Introduction

Various ethical perspectives are leveraged when determining a course of action or deciding on what and how to communicate. Below are three perspectives, along with explanations, contexts, major tenants and critiques of the perspective.

Virtue Ethics of Aristotle

The first perspective this paper will review is Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Aristotle was a Hellenistic philosopher who taught his students philosophy and who wrote a number of treatises on ethics. His virtue ethics were written in the context of a philosophical dialogue in searching for and defining the Good. In this dialogue, Aristotle contends there is a purpose or aim for the individual and consequently his ethical stance is placed in a teleological perspective. He claims that everyone seeks happiness or to live well (Kraut, 2022) and this is the ultimate aim and Good for all people. In other words, people pursue happiness or living well for its own sake and not for some other aim or purpose.

The major tenets of virtue ethics are based on the ancient Hellenistic premise that humans (and all organisms and things) have a proper function (CrashCourse, 2016). Part of the proper function of humans is to use reason and to develop the proper character traits in order to reach one’s full potential. To that end, virtue ethics elaborate on the moral characteristics a human should have, ensuring they demonstrate the right disposition (neither too much, nor too little). For example, the virtue of courage is the ability to avoid acting the coward (too little courage) and to evade being rash (too much courage) (Kraut, 2022). Furthermore, each unique circumstance and context will demand the proper scale of a particular virtue.

Modern philosophers, such as Adorno question the premise of Aristotle’s aim at the Good. Whyman (2017) reviews Adorno’s critique of Aristotle and contends one of the main criticisms is the idea that our conception of the Good is warped by the world in which we live and therefore we cannot objectively point to a human’s aim. Stated differently, Aristotle’s theory fails to appreciate a significant portion of human existence and suffering. Skeptically speaking, perhaps the Good is in fact to suffer pain and misery.

Johnston (2020) provides a couple examples of virtue ethics in communication in the arena of business. Before demonstrating how this perspective is used, he distinguishes character ethics from action-based ethics. “[A]ction-based ethics asks whether a particular action is ethical, whereas agent-based ethics focuses on the individual agent’s character and motivations and asks whether they are virtuous” (2020). One way to manage and communicate via virtue ethics is to enable a “capabilities approach” (2020), whereby employees are expected to exhibit moral character in their actions and communications. Perhaps a counter example of virtue ethics would be the lack of moral characteristics demonstrated by Enron’s management and how the collapse of that business was due to lack of morals and accountability.

Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill

The second perspective is Utilitarianism as conceived by John Stuart Mill as well as others who have elaborated on this ethical theory. Early forerunners to Mill’s ideas include many British philosophers such as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson and Hume (Driver, 2009). While these philosophers advanced a strong theological sense, they nonetheless carried the core belief that ethical behavior should promote the greatest happiness or utility for the greatest number of people. Under this theistic, moral system, what is good for the common or general community, is good for the individual, and in turn encourages piety to God.

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sought “legal and social reform” (2009) and promoted the ideas of their philosophical forebearers by arguing all humans are subject to pleasure and pain, and consequently, correct actions should be based on promoting pleasure and minimizing pain. Bentham laid a strong foundation from which Mill would fine-tune higher pleasures above “simple-minded” ones (2009) as well as distinguish moral actions between humans and other beings such as animals.

Mill’s Utilitarianism, which telos or aim seeks the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people, contained a number of considerations when seeking to find the highest utility of moral action. Driver (2009) notes several ways of attempting to evaluate the utility of moral action, including intensity, duration, assuredness, proximity, consequentiality, and purity. Furthermore, Mill places a premium on rational pleasure over physical pleasure.

In the list of considerations for determining the value of utility is consequentiality. This is perhaps the one aspect of Utilitarianism that is criticized the most (West, 2006). More precisely, how can anyone foresee far enough into the future and determine the utility of an action or choice in order to evaluate if the present choice will be a net positive or not? Related to this critique are the differing levels of individuals’ welfare. If Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest good for the individual, and the net good of all individuals is the aim, how is one able to compare the degree of benefit of a choice between two people? Between untangling “causal ramifications” and determining value judgements of differing individuals, calculating the greatest utility of a choice is “tricky and imprecise at best” (2006, p. 203). 

Perhaps a good example of Utilitarianism being used in a communication ethic, which also demonstrates the critique of the ethic, is what took place during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Herron and Manuel (2022) explain the many considerations the United States government had to contemplate when deciding on and communicating policy to the American public. Torn between shutting the economy down, which would have significant consequences, and allowing the virus to run its course, most officials decided on the former. They rationalized that in the longer term, it would be better to snuff out the virus by implementing lockdowns and take the economic hit. However, some (Pachauri & Pachauri, 2023) have noted that too many lives were lost prematurely, not because of the virus, but because of lockdown policies. The diverging analyses underscore the significant difficulty of assessing the consequentiality of Utilitarian ethics.

John Rawls Theory of Justice

The last ethical perspective of this essay is John Rawl’s theory of justice, which was advanced as a response to the widely adopted view of Utilitarianism. As discussed in the previous section, one of the challenges of Utilitarianism is that individuals’ welfare differ from person to person. John Rawls recognized this and further observed the “significant political and economic inequalities” found in society (Wenar, 2008). Acknowledging the basic structures of society and that significant obstacles inhibit people from leaving and changing societies, Rawls argued for a form of justice based on the idea that society is both able and willing to support the basic needs of all its people, and that its citizens ought to cooperate to equally distribute burdens and benefits. To this end, his deontological perspective is based on two principles. First, individuals have a claim to basic and equal liberties. Second, a society ought to require its citizens have a fair and equal opportunity at jobs, positions and offices and that when a society is faced with choices, the one that presents “the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members” should be the one implemented (2008). One premise of the second principle is that all individuals are capable of contributing to society and thus have something to offer in order for society to distribute goods.

To implement these principles, Rawls asks people to apply a veil of ignorance (BBC Radio 4, 2015). In this thought experiment, when deciding on distribution, people ought to place themselves in a position where they do not know what their lot in life will be. While a rich man might opt for lower taxes, a disadvantaged minority might opt for redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on the rich. But if both these individuals were to make a choice behind a veil of ignorance, they would decide on a course of action that would benefit the least advantaged.

Perhaps the greatest weakness and criticism of Rawls’ theory is the premise of his second principle. First, it potentially violates personal liberties by demanding a social contract be enforced on people who contribute to society. Audard (2007) further notes this social contract “interferes with legitimate transactions among self-interested individuals” (p. 277). In this same work, the author notes others’ objections to Rawls by attacking his underlying premise: all members of a society are able to contribute. If a large portion of society is physically or mentally unable to create goods, then much of his theory falls apart.

John Rawls’s theory of justice can be quite abstract and difficult to implement. However, there appears to be some level of analysis in how his ideas could be put into practice in the way people become eligible for Medicaid. Coursen (2007) investigated how Medicaid policies were written in various states and then assessed these guidelines to determine if they met the conditions for Rawls’s theory of justice. The dissertation found that Medicaid can be distributed fairly if the administrators of the policies believed that equity in health is a moral imperative and if they are willing to enforce that perspective.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this review explained three ethical perspectives: virtue ethics, Utilitarianism and Rawls’s theory of justice. It provided some context in which the framework was created, and it elaborated the major tenants of the perspective. Lastly, it provided an example of the framework in use. 

References

Audard, C. (2007). John Rawls. Acumen Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315712109

BBC Radio 4. (2015). The Veil Of Ignorance [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8GDEaJtbq4 

Coursen, C. C. (2007). Theory to practice: The application of John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness to Medicaid. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

CrashCourse. (2016). Aristotle & virtue theory: crash course philosophy #38. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ

Driver, J. (2009, March 27). The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Herron, T. L., & Manuel, T. (2022). Ethics of U.S. government policy responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic: A utilitarianism perspective. Business and Society Review (1974), 127(S1), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12259

Johnston, J. (2020). Where Public Interest, Virtue Ethics and Pragmatic Sociology Meet: Modelling a Socially Progressive Approach for Communication. Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture, 15(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.355

Kraut, R. (2022). Aristotle’s Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

Pachauri, S., & Pachauri, A. (2023). Global Perspectives of COVID-19 Pandemic on Health, Education, and Role of Media (1st ed. 2023.). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1106-6

Wenar, L. (2008, March 25). John Rawls. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

West, H. R. (2006). The Blackwell guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism (1st ed.). Blackwell Pub.

Whyman, T. (2017). Adorno’s Aristotle Critique and Ethical Naturalism. European Journal of Philosophy, 25(4), 1208–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12243