I recently read a nonfiction book detailing the lives of ordinary people living in extreme poverty abroad. The book has enjoyed great commercial success in the United States. The author no doubt received an advance and funding to spend time following these people's lives. My question is this: Is she ethically obligated to share her profits with the people whose stories have made this book what it is? KATE MCMAHON, BROOKLYN
She is not. If she wants to help these people, it's always her choice. It would be a notable act of kindness. But there is no ethical imperative to do so, for two reasons.
The first has to do with the danger of situational logic. In this specific example, sharing profits with the book's sources seems just, as this is a book about poverty. But what if a best-selling book were written about the drug-fueled sexcapades of Wall Street millionaires? Would those guys deserve a similar cut of the profits for supplying the details and serving as the author's real-world characters? They would be no less essential to the book's existence.
The second reason has to do with the writer's responsibility as a creator of nonfiction. One goal of nonfiction is to represent the world accurately; this is compromised if subjects are paid for their participation. It creates an incentive to tell a story that's more interesting than it actually is, or to shape specific anecdotes that support the writer's pre-existing thesis. Your example is a little more nuanced, because you suggest the concept of profit-sharing (after the fact). In that system, individuals who were profiled would be rewarded only in the wake of a book's success. But this is still a problem. It sets a precedent that could impede other writers from creating similarly important works in the future (since subjects might refuse to participate unless promised compensation on the back end, which is ethically no different from being paid in advance).
In general, there should be no fiscal relationship between writers and the people they write about, unless the work is commissioned by the subject. Of course, I'm a writer myself, so my take on this issue obviously warrants scrutiny. Moreover, there are larger questions here that would be impossible to address in this limited space (most notably the ethics of writing about anyone, for any purpose that rewards the writer or alters the perception of the person being examined). If this problem interests you, I would suggesting reading "The Journalist and the Murderer," by Janet Malcolm, for an analysis far better than anything I could possibly offer here.
(LOT) TERY
My condominium is selling the few remaining parking spaces still owned by the original builder. They will use a lottery to determine which residents may purchase the spots. The most valuable of these spaces is a handicapped spot which the building, because it is private, is free to assign to anyone. I don't own a car and already rent out my one parking space. Is it ethical for me to participate in the lottery and potentially snap up the handicapped spot? My intention would be to rent it out (in all likelihood to a handicapped resident I bested in the lottery). But do I have the moral right to enter the lottery for the handicapped spot in the first place? MARC WEINBERG, CHICAGO
Ethically, I think you're O.K. If people were bidding on these spots in an auction, it would be wrong for you to participate (since you'd be driving up the price for something you don't need, at the expense of a neighboring car owner who has no choice but to match whatever you're willing to pay). But this is a lottery, so that's not a risk. It's all random chance. It's also ethically acceptable for you to win this spot and rent it out, assuming you don't gouge the handicapped person who needs it (and might have no other option, due to a physical limitation).
There are, however, two smaller issues you might want to think about.
The first has to do with the spot itself. My assumption is that the handicapped spot is (geographically) the best option, but not fundamentally different from the regular spots. In other words, I assume it's merely closer to the entry of the building. If that's the case, enter the lottery. But if this spot was designed for the disabled with some unique architectural advantage — for example, if it's the only spot that allows access to a ramp or an elevator — then I would advise against getting involved for straightforward business motives. Technically, this wouldn't change much about the ethics. But it would mean you're taking advantage of something that was consciously intended for a person who isn't you.
Another thing you might want to consider is the overall morality of using your neighbors as a means for generating profit. Here again, there's no ethical roadblock stopping you from doing so (and if you don't do it, someone else in your building may). But the reality is that the people in your building who own cars need a place to park them. Obviously, they took on that responsibility when they decided to purchase a vehicle. Nobody owes them a parking spot. But this situation is not a level playing field. For you, the lottery is just a whim (with no possible downside). For the car owners living alongside you, the lottery is something they need to win (and if they don't, they'll have no choice but to rent a spot or keep their vehicle elsewhere). Certainly, it's still your prerogative to participate. But it's not very neighborly.
E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
The Ethicist: The Journalist and the Moneymaker
Dengan url
http://koraninternetonline.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-ethicist-journalist-and-moneymaker_4.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
The Ethicist: The Journalist and the Moneymaker
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
The Ethicist: The Journalist and the Moneymaker
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar