Promoting The Good Of The Situation

How should we respond to the disturbing and negative things on the news? Is it ok to close our eyes and pretend that the world—as portrayed on the news—doesn’t really exist? And on top of these questions, how should we explain the negative and disturbing things on the news to children? That is, what types of obligation do parents and adults have to children when they expose youngsters to the news, and when they coach children on how to respond to the negative and disturbing things on the news?

It’s no secret that violence, strife, atrocity, and death draw a large audience to the news. But, in spite of the attraction we have to these disturbing and negative things, exposure to this type of media is—in itself—disturbing, as it can leave a person generally upset and/or depressed.

In observing the disturbing and negative aspects of the news, Johnson points out two ethical issues that are important to consider. The first issue concerns how we—as consumers of news media—should understand and deal with the things that are shown on the news. The second issue—which a more critical analysis of the lyrics reveals—address obligation. Specifically, the type of obligation that parents and adults have to children when they expose youngsters to the news, and when they help children understand the things that are shown on the news.

In regard to the first issue, news media has a profound affect in the way we see our community and in the way we understand the world. The producers of this media might claim that they merely point their cameras at what is going on in the world, but this is not an accurate description of news programming. Rather, the producers of this media spend a great deal of time deciding and editing what is going to appear every night on the evening news. As a result, the news can magnify certain events and downplay and ignore others.

Although adults have the ability to put disturbing and negative things in perspective by utilizing their critical capacities when viewing the news, this is not the case for children—as illustrated in the previous essay on television violence. For this reason, it’s important for us to consider the obligation that parents and adults have when they allow children to view the news, and when consoling a child when they ask questions about the disturbing and negative things they see on the news. To begin reflecting on this issue of obligation, lets take a second look at the lyrics of “The News”, as they provide a narrative that illustrates how a parent can fail to fulfill their obligation, when consoling their child about how to respond to the disturbing and negative things on the news.

In sum, the narrative in the lyrics consists of a dialogue that takes place between a parent giving instruction on how to respond to some of the issues on the news, a child reacting to the parent’s instructions, and the parent responding to the child’s reaction. To visually depict this exchange in the above lyrics, the issues in the news are underlined, the parent’s voice is bolded, and the child’s reaction is italicized.

In the first two verses, the parent suggests that an adequate response to the issues on the news is closing one’s eyes and ears. Then, a child who cannot understand why the newscasters are emotionally unaffected when they “read about people who die” interrupts the third set of instructions. Following this, the parent responds to the child’s reaction by repeating the instructions given in the first verse.

This dialogue illustrates a parent’s failure to lookout for the child’s best interest by putting the youngster to sleep with the news, and a failure to adequately console their child’s disruption after viewing disturbing and negative things on the news. To understand why the parent is letting their child down, and why the parent can be morally reprimanded for their actions, let’s take a look at Robert Neville’s critique of obligation in The Puritan Smile.

Neville offers an interesting critique of the traditional philosophical position of liberalism, by providing an alternate conception of obligation. Where traditional liberal philosophers argue that obligation is something that is acquired, Neville argues that people begin in a state of full obligation, and then devise ways to distribute it.

For example, the traditional liberal position on obligation is shown in the philosophy of social contract theorists. These theorists argue that a person acquires public obligation to the extent they relinquish part of their power/sovereignty to a state in order to gain something—like safety and security or protection of their property. As a result of this contractual exchange, a division is created between the public and the private realm, where citizens are only required to fulfill obligations that are acquired by, and laid out in, public law. According to this view, people have theoretically no obligation in the private realm, unless it’s stated in public law.

Conversely, Neville challenges this traditional liberal conception of obligation, by demonstrating that obligations already exist, and that obligations are subject to distribution. Neville observes that without a government or state, everyone would be obligated to promote the good of a situation—like during a disaster/crisis, when the artificial distribution of obligations falls apart, and everyone is put into a position to promote the good of a situation. Thus, participating in a government, allows people to distribute obligation to elected officials and public servants.

For instance, our obligation to put out a fire that is burning a neighbor’s house is distributed to firefighters, who can fight the fire more effectively and safely than we could do ourselves. But, it is important to ask, why should people be concerned about promoting the good of a situation?

Neville responds to this question by arguing that a person should be concerned about promoting the good of a situation because their moral worth—or character—is directly attached to the way one chooses and acts. And, the way a person chooses and acts is directly related to how they distribute obligations and how they take up the obligations that remain. Thus, who we are is derived from how we distribute obligations, and how we take up the obligations that are not distributed.

“The bottom line”, according to Neville, “is that the values served by potential actions always bear upon a mature person’s identity. And, therefore, such a person is responsible for the values resident in all potential actions, including those constituted in part by social obligation”. In sum, choices and actions give a person moral identity; and this moral identity is based on how a person distributes obligations, and how a person promotes the good of the situation for those obligations which they have not distributed. Thus, a parent is obligated to raise their child in a way that promotes the good of the situation, by raising their child in a way that fulfills their obligation to promote the growth and development of their children.

A parent is morally responsible for every choice and action they make that affects their child. When we apply Neville’s critique of obligation to the narrative dialogue in “the news”, it shows that this parent has a poor moral identity, because they have failed to meet their obligation to promote the good of a child’s growth and development in two ways:

First, the parent has potentially harmed the good of the situation and tarnished their moral identity by subjecting their child to the news. As discussed in the previous essay on television violence, children are significantly influenced by violent television programming, and there is strong evidence that suggests that this also affects adult behavior. Thus, putting children to sleep with the news—that has disturbing and negative things on it—is liable to detrimentally affect the child’s development and behavior. And, as a result, failing to fulfill their obligation tarnishes the parent’s moral identity.

Second, the parent has failed to adequately respond to the child’s disruption and need for consolation after being upset by the news. Although the parent tells the child not to believe the things they see or hear on the news, it’s inadequate and irresponsible, because this response does not promote the good of the child’s growth and development. This critique is supported by my previous essay on television violence, which cites Brandon S. Centerwall, who argues that very young children cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy on TV, and that children do not have the capacity to just ignore the negative and disturbing things on the television.

In closing, it’s important for all of us to recognize the obligation and responsibility we have to promote the good of every situation—except when we have the luxury of distributing our obligation to other persons or agencies—in order to improve our current situation. We should recognize our obligations, and take responsibility for our choices and actions in light of recognizing our obligations.

In the example provided in the lyrics of “the news”, the good of the situation could be greatly improved if the parent merely exercised a different option for putting their child to sleep. We cannot forget that the television and the evening news are modern creations and that there have been a number of methods for putting children to sleep—like singing lullabies or reading bedtime stories—that are not detrimental to the growth and development of children, or to a parent’s moral identity.