Journalists are regularly criticized for causing harm to others, such as invading privacy, printing, or airing offensive material, and so forth. Although most sensitive journalists readily acknowledge these harms, they frequently argue that the pursuit and coverage of news is nonetheless justified because it fulfills a greater moral purpose - satisfaction of the public's right to know. This article argues that although "the public s right to know" does justify some harmful journalistic behavior, too often the phrase is used without (...) the conceptual precision necessary to justify the competing harm. That is, journalists often confuse having a right to know with having an interest or curiosity in knowing and such conceptual confusion too often allows journalistic behavior to occur that would otherwise be seen as unethical. (shrink)

This careful commentary analyzes the Grundlegung, the metaphysical discussion of morality written during Kant's critical period, between publication of the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason.

A thoughtful addition to the growing debate over public and private morality. Looks at lying and deception in law, family, medicine, government.

Shows how the ethical issues raised by secrets and secrecy in our careers or private lives take us to the heart of the critical questions of private and public morality.

This text explores the philosophical foundations of journalism from the libertarian polemics of John Milton in 17th-century England through the controversial essays of 20th-century media prophet, Marshall McLuhan.