One of the first questions we need to ask is whether the digital manipulation of images is an ethical issue as opposed to a matter of social policy. Usually this question is answered by asking two further questions: (a) is the issue controversial - is there a significant number of people who are either for or against the digital manipulation of images; (b) is it a distinctly moral issue.
The first is difficult to answer. It is legitimate to ask what constitutes a ‘significant’ number. Issues such as abortion, capital punishment and the sterilization of vulnerable women attract very large numbers of those for or against. Whilst it is true that manipulation is a hot topic amongst photographers, although not all, the numbers are relatively small. There are very few indications that it is a matter of controversy amongst the general population.
The second question is easier to answer. There is a generally accepted principle that we should not deceive others. Avoiding, for the moment, at what level manipulation becomes deception, it is clear that manipulation involves altering the ‘truth’ of an image. On this latter basis digital manipulation is an ethical issue. It is an interesting debate whether the certainty of the answer to the second question outweighs the uncertainty of the answer to the first question. Whilst I personally feel that the issue is not an ethical one but more a matter of social policy there is an argument that, within the photographic world, there is a significant proportion of that population that find the issue controversial. On this basis the issue is ethical.
In the preceding paragraph I make reference to the ‘truth’ of an image. The word was placed in inverted commas because the concept of truth in an image is, I believe, fundamental to the whole discussion about manipulation. The question of how we know that something is true has exercised philosophers for thousands of years and continues to do so today. Needless to say there is no universally accepted answer - if there was then the debate would have come to a conclusion. From a photographic point of view the proposition “The world exists objectively of the ways we think about it or describe it “ is of key importance. If you reject the proposition then there is only a subjective reality and there is no way to decide if an image is true or false. On this latter basis there is no ethical argument that has any meaning.
Continuing on the basis that the proposition holds then we, as photographers, can reasonably believe that there exists, either now or in the future, a camera that can accurately capture the objective world. I would argue that it does not exist at the present time. No matter how sophisticated the camera and how advanced the technology and software used the image captured is a best effort. We know that the camera cannot capture the range of tones and colours that the human eye can manage (I will duck the issue as to whether the human eye can ‘see’ the objective world) and what we see in an image is a cut down and manipulated version of the information that was available to the camera at the time of shooting. It follows that the camera has not recorded the truth(something is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact in the objective world). We cannot therefore claim that an image is true. Although we talk about little lies, big lies and even white lies something is either true or not - there are no gradations of truth.
Post capture enhancements whether in camera or later using a computer moves the image further and further from correspondence to the fact in the objective world. However the size of the lie does not change.
Like many others I have sat through talks where the audience is taken step by step through the manipulation of the base image and asked if what has just happened is in some sense ‘wrong’. We move from minor changes to white balance or saturation to significant changes that include large changes in the image information or where other material not part of the original image is added to create something that cannot exist in the real world. Audience reaction varies considerably as does individual reaction. Culturally there is an acceptance of small lies and even approbation for the use of white lies so we are comfortable in accepting change at some level and admitting to the fact in front of others. However unless we subscribe to moral relativism that argues moral judgements have their origins in social or individual standards and that there is no single objective by which we can assess the truth of a moral proposition such as It is wrong to deceive others we cannot avoid the conclusion that all photographic images deceive and that is morally wrong.
In the world in which we act most of us determine how we should act (in a moral sense) by weighing the consequences of such actions. There is a branch of ethics that addresses this issue called consequentialist theories. Here the argument is that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable.
Of course this raises the issue of favourable to whom. This has led to three rival theories - Ethical egoism; Ethical Altruism; and Utilitarianism.
Ethical egoism argues that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable only to the person performing that action.
Ethical altruism argues that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone except the person performing the action.
Utilitarianism argues that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone.
Just to add to the mix there at least two versions of utilitarianism - act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. The former would justify acts of torture as morally permissible if the social benefits of these actions were great than social harm. The latter applies the favourable/unfavourable argument to moral rules and asks the question are the benefits of not lying greater than the benefits of lying. (Try using this approach to the question from your spouse - Does my bum look big in this?!)
It is safe to conclude that to enter a discussion about the ethics of manipulating an image is to enter a discussion that has no conclusion. Much will depend upon the initial ethical considerations of the participants and differences are incapable of resolution. If a discussion is incapable of conclusion then it is a waste of time - from a moral point of view we should spend our time in a more universally beneficial activity such as photography.
No comments:
Post a Comment