Ethics

I was thinking about the ethics of the deceit involved in the current "Borat" movie. "Borat" filmed people, who of course gave their written consent, and then held them up to public ridicule. Since these people gave their written consent, they have no legal case against "Borat", but I'm wondering if they still have an ethical case. I'm thinking that "Borat" used people as means to an end, but his subjects were also using "Borat" in that they probably thought they were getting something good out of him. It just turned out that "Borat" had the last word. Is it unethical to use people's images for purposes for which they wouldn't approve, even after they have given their consent?

Comments

I suppose they gave up their right to privacy if they signed something accordingly, so as you say the issue is moral, not legal. Is it fair to make fun of people, when they do not expect, nor understood what they were participating in? Did they really give informed consent? On the other hand, we need to balance whatever might be wrong about this with the putative good of poking fun at rather unpleasant views that many of his interviewees were happy to share, and the general benefits of comedy and bringing pleasure to others. I tend to think that on balance he got it about right. If I agree to be interviewed by the media and do not like the way the interview went, or feel I did not have the opportunity to say what I really wanted to say, then I cannot complain about the setup if I agreed to it. It may well be that the interviewer is much more skilled at his or her work than I am, and I suffer accordingly, which is a good reason of course not to put oneself in the public eye if one is concerned at how your image may be used.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman

Read another response about Ethics