Morality Essay Essay

October 25, 2017 Law

In 1994 Kevin Carter won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography thanks to a exposure that he took in the small town of Ayod in Sudan of a kid creeping towards a eating centre. Whether it was morally right for him to hold captured that minute alternatively of assisting the kid is a argument with many people. Some people believe that it was right because it helped halt the dearth in Africa. others believe it was incorrectly because he did non help the kid after taking the image.

It is understood that there was 1000s of refugees walking and creeping towards the nutrient centre. so was he say to assist everyone or merely that kid? In doctrine category we have been speaking about Morality in Kant’s point of position which is the Categorical Imperative and besides about the Morality point of position based on Consequentialism. I believe that it was non morally allowable for Kevin Carter to go forth the kid because of Kant’s point of position on Morality. and that he should hold non won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography based on this exposure and I will explicate why in this essay.

Harmonizing to Kant we should establish morality on the Universal Law which means we should universalise our actions. This jurisprudence is the same as the Golden Rule ; Treat others the manner you want to be treated. What Kant established fundamentally was that we should esteem all individuals morally equal. The Consequentialism point of position on morality on the other manus is that we should establish it on the rule of utilitarianism which means that for an action to be moral it must bring forth “The Greatest sum of Good for the Greatest sum of people” .

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Even though I agree with the consquentialism point of position on morality I do non hold with it this clip. Why? Because I believe that at all times we should handle others the manner we want to be treated and that all worlds are equal. This is why when replying our inquiry I based my reply on Kant’s point of position based on morality. I believe that it was non morally allowable for Kevin Carter to go forth the kid after he took the image. First of all I believe that Kevin should hold non taken the image period. he should hold right off went to help the kid.

Like Kant said we should handle others the manner we want to be treated. if Carter was in a place like that he would hold non liked to be left at that place to his ain fortune. I understand that Carter had a professional duty where he is merely an perceiver non a participant. which means he was merely at that place to detect and take images of the whole state of affairs. I besides understand that he was there illicitly and that he did non desire to acquire caught yet he had a personal duty to assist the kid.

In transition given to us by Professor Jordan it is said that Carter was with a group of photojournalist called “the Bang-Bang Club” by a Johannesburg magazine. These people wanted to do the universe aware of all the issues of unfairness. There is where I believe that Carter’s personal duty plays function. Carter wanted the universe do be cognizant of all the issues traveling around the universe and for them to assist. They were at that place because they wanted other states all around the universe to halt the dearth. yet he did non assist a kid when it was in his custodies to assist that kid and merely left.

Carter here was beliing his believes to get down with. Carter did non merely merely take the image but waited several proceedingss for the vulture to distribute his wings so he could acquire a more dramatic shooting. Carter did non merely utilize the kid to acquire a image but waited patiently to acquire a better image alternatively of frightening the vulture right off from the kid and assisting him or her. There were more images that could hold impacted us. and I am certain that if he looked around he would hold found this is why I do non believe he should hold taken the image.

I do non believe that he should hold won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography based on that exposure. I think that it was incorrect to win a award by utilizing other people. Carter used the kid and did non even help the kid. Sing that I believe that it was incorrect for Carter to hold even taken that image I strongly do non believe that he should hold won that award. Carter could hold used any other exposure to acquire his point across yet he decided to utilize that one and take his sweet clip to take it anyhow. he used the kid and did non assist her.

I candidly do no believe that he should hold one that award. In Conclusion I believe that Carter should hold non used the kid to take that image. and he shouldn’t have won the award. I believe that Carter had the duty to assist the kid because he saw the kid agony and in danger of acquiring attacked by the vulture. Given the fact that he was the lone 1 there he had the duty to assist the kid. We should make unto others what we would wish to be done to us. If I was in that child’s place I would hold liked to be helped like I am certain Carter would hold excessively.

I think that if Carter would hold helped the kid he would hold non been depressed and committer self-destruction because he would hold known he did something good by assisting the kid. Like I said before I am reasonably certain he could hold chosen another exposure to acquire his point across to hold people help halt the dearth. Besides he wanted people to assist yet it was in his range to assist this kid and he did non? He was traveling against his ain believes in my sentiment. I believe that it was morally incorrect for Carter to non assist the kid get to the nutrient bank or at least a safer topographic point. closer to were that kid could acquire the aid needed.


I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out