Truth vs. Harm
In the name of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, aggression lies at a very critical point. There is a danger that arguments for the greater good will justify doing harm to some people” (Ward, n.d., p.41). Meaning, dignity and respect may be harmed to achieve the truth and justice. Will McAvoy runs a show which he claims to have ethical principles. Will’s show is controlled by him, and being the one in control of the interview with Mr. Wall, he’s the one that should, in theory, control the flow of the interview (the pace of the interview, the questions asked, the overall mood, etc.). Will McAvoy is a member of the media elite — he has the privilege of addressing the millions of viewers with the “truth” or news of the day. He has the upper hand in the interview on a show he runs and hosts. Being in that position and in a position where he is trying to ask a question, he expects to deserve an answer. When McAvoy gets a vague answer multiple times, he starts picking on Mr. Wall, which can be easily viewed as unethical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qASo2EQjfus
However, we’re emotional beings and we are driven by emotions. Will picked on Mr. Wall but it happened to be a very sensitive topic which in my personal opinion, I believe he handled pretty well. McAvoy clearly believes that the man he is interviewing is defending a person who isn’t worthy to defend. I believe that the fact that Will stressed on the issue of the aid being “black” and “gay” really enhances the interview by conveying the message he’s trying to send. The attack does not make him racist and close-minded, but caring for the aid and for the viewers watching. Will wants to convey the truth; and whether he says harsh words or hurtful sentences, he’s still conveying the truth about the presidential candidate. His way of approach towards this specific subject was mean and rude; but do we really have to be nice at all times? If the message we’re trying to deliver is crucial and important for the people of the country, do we sugarcoat and avoid debating to ensure someone’s feelings? McAvoy targeted a weak point and that’s how he had control. Again, there could’ve been many other ways in which Will would have been looked at as less cruel. However, this is besides the main conflict. The main conflict is whether the presidential candidate, and why his aid represents a man who doesn’t stand for all colors of the American citizens. Since the candidate does not relate to homosexuals and is clearly against them, how can any homosexual look up to this man?
The practice of the deontological theory begins with the priority of being “right” rather than “good”, according to Rawls (Ward, n.d., p.44). The people have the right to know who they may be electing. So as a journalist, it was his duty to provide this piece of information to the public. In addition, Will “put aside partial thoughts about [his] advantage or happiness and start with an impartial, rational procedure” (Kant, p.44). In the video, Will states he could have stopped with the attack but he did not. With full awareness, he chose to keep going and as time passed by, the attack got more personal and his argument was driven by his personal duty to get the answer he wants. Racism and homophobia are exposed when people claim they don’t want to expose them. By intentionally not sharing an idea concerning a matter, you are sharing it. As a matter of fact, Will’s argument isn’t based on his personal beliefs, but on Santorum’s. Will sheds a great amount of light on the fact that Santorum treats his aid in an inferior manner, and that’s unacceptable. The problem here isn’t Will and his attack, but why a person intentionally agrees to be inferior.
Bibliography
Ward, A. J. (n.d.). Ethics and the Media. Cambridge .