Since the majority of Hillsborough centres on the grave consequences, utilising a non-consequentialist theory such as Kantianism provides balance. Kant’s theory is deontological it judges morality by examining the motive and rationalisation of actions; rather than goals achieved.
Since Kant’s theory emphasises rationalisation, in regards to Police the attention would be on Chief Superintendent Duckenfield, the match commander on the day of the Hillsborough disaster. Duckenfield, a rational person, made the decision to open the gate to the terraces, which led to the incident and then constructed the myth that a drunken mob of Liverpool supporters charged the gate, forcing it open. Police propagated this fallacy, reporting it to media sources such as BBC’s match reporter John Motson, who in turn informed the public; consequently this myth became the ‘official’ story for decades. To analyse Duckenfield’s rationalisation in a moral context, we must use Kant’s categorical imperative maxims. Firstly, Duckenfield fails in the consistency maxim, as it is unlikely to have wanted to treated in the way his decision making handled the supporters. This feeds into the second maxim; human dignity. Kant would likely suggest Duckenfield and the Police Superiors in general treated the human beings involved (Liverpool supporters), as only having instrumental value. They were used in their story as a means to an end, to deceit and coerce the public and judicial system, thus not respecting their ‘personhood’. Finally, in terms of universality, the action exhibited by police would not be accepted anywhere in the world or by any organisation, thus could not become a universal law. Therefore, it can be said, using Kant’s categorical imperative, Duckenfield and the Police Superiors decisions can be said to be immoral. However, analysis that uses Kant is only useful to an extent due to criticism of his theories. One issue is the complexity leads to difficulty in application (Crane and Matten). Kant details many three multifaceted maxims for ethical decision. However, Police during the incident had to make quick judgements based on limited information. Another …show more content…
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, which states an action is morally correct if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action. Although, it is recognisable that by creating the most shocking front-page and likely selling a vast amount of papers, MacKenzie benefitted his shareholders financially, the harm to society of the actions far outweighed this. The defamation of Hillsborough survivors, many already suffering from survivor’s guilt, post-traumatic stress disorders and/or alcoholism, had a deep negative impact on supporters, hindering their mental recovery process (‘Hillsborough’s Untold Stories’ 5 Live Sport Podcast). Therefore, in a Utilitarianism perspective this decision is morally …show more content…
Accordingly to his principles the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profit. Thus the actions of MacKenzie can be morally justified, as he is an executive responsibility to act solely in the interests of the organisation and shareholders. However, it can be argued that the brand contamination and eventual boycott of the newspaper resulted in the action not even being beneficial to the shareholders. This stance shows the difficulty in applying ethical framework to situations, as it is unlikely Friedman himself would state the Sun’s actions were morally