Moral acceptability

1. respect for the autonomy of others;
2. nonmaleficence (do no harm);
3. beneficence (prevent the occasion for harm); and
4. ensure justice (fair treatment for all).

Their concept blends Kant (autonomy), Mill (against harm) and Aristotle (justice). The “do good” is from the Golden Rule.

Another of today’s philosophers, William Frankena, came up with a not too-dissimilar list, which he asked us in priority order:

1. not inflict evil or harm;
2. prevent evil or harm;
3. remove evil or harm; and finally
4. promote good.

Frankena appears to have lost Kant’s argument for autonomy, but a little thought will demonstrate that disregarding peoples’ wishes, ignoring their own valuation of themselves, is to cause them harm. Harm can come in many ways - it can be deliberate. Acts that are repugnant to people, that denigrate them and cause pain, are wrongs. But even if the act only has the potential to cause harm, it can still be wrong. An advertisement might not be acted on by anyone but if it carried a misleading message, it is unethical.

Nevertheless, if we were to explore whether Bill Henson’s photographs could cause harm to any of the children, we would come up with a doubtful maybe. But if we combine it with the injunction to respect the autonomy of others, we have a much clearer guideline.

No western society gives full freedom to children aged 12 or 13, They are not allowed to vote, to drink, drive a car, The very few decisions that they have to make are put in the hands of their parents or guardians. But even parents are not given a totally free choice. If they do not act in their children’s interests - for instance, reject a medical treatment that a hospital deems necessary, the parents will very soon find themselves in court. Children, in short, are deemed to be incapable of deciding for themselves. They do not have the independence, the knowledge of the world or the strength of will to decide for themselves. Society decides for them. Parents who decide for a child on the parents’ preferences are contravening Kant’s second Categorical Imperative:

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.

The children are being used. What ever the parents’ motives might be, be it an artistic desire, notoriety, or to make money, they are using their children for their own objectives. A naked full frontal is unlikely to be the photographic objective of any child, but even for those that it is, society says that children cannot decide.

Bill Henson is no different - to make an impact on the art world, to broaden his name, to make money - whatever are his objectives, he is using people who have virtually no say, to further his own ends.

Several centuries of moral thinking say that it is wrong.