The greater public good

The greater good for the greater mass. The discussion over sacrificing the individual for the “greater public good” has been a heated one during my journalism studies. The “greater good for society” was always considered an indicator to weigh in ethically "challenging" situations. When, for example, the violation of an individual’s privacy is “permissible" if the information gathered will be for the “greater public good”.

I’ve always had a problem with the equation of sacrificing the individual for the mass. Which standards are we applying when making such a decision? The journalists? The news channel's audience rating? The advertiser's agenda? The media consumer's standard?

These days I see a similar debate in a completely different context. Which individuals will safe the world from potential nuclear devastation coming from the Fukushima plant?

The standard applied to answer this question is obviously defined by the Japanese government. Last week we saw how quickly standards can change. The Japanese government increased the radiation exposure level for workers at the plant to 250 millisieverts. This is five times higher than the maximum exposure level for nuclear rescue workers recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. However, the Commission "offers no restriction in a crisis when the benefit to others clearly outweighs the rescuer's risk."

The rules changed while the game was on. I find this development very disturbing. Every worker who had signed up to work at the plant based his or her decision on conditions which now suddenly changed. I do understand that somebody has to do the dirty job. However, to work under an increased threat to health and life should be a voluntary decision in my opinion.