Stringini 1

Mary Stringini
Comparative Religious Ethics
Dr. Mowrey
Due: Tuesday, December 8th

Kevin Carter, Struggling Girl, Sudan 1993

Stringini 2
Photojournalists often find themselves in difficult ethical dilemmas throughout their careers.
These situations cause them to make a choice, and sometimes these choices can be life changing.
Kenneth Kobr, the author of Photojournalism, the Professionals Approach, wrote,
Photojournalism has no bible, no rabbinical college, no Pope to define correct choices. There is
no sole arbiter of what is or isnt ethical, and even if there were, the line isnt always black and
white (Bersak, 2006). So what guides the decisions that photojournalists face? One of the most
important principles in journalism is to be objective in their reporting. They are meant to simply
observe what they are shooting, never get involved no matter how traumatic the story or situation
might be. Photojournalists do this in order to maintain professionalism and keep their distance
from the subjects of their photographs. At what point does the photographer have a moral
obligation to become a helper instead of an objective bystander? What ethical responsibility (if
any) does a photojournalist have to the subjects of his/her photos? When analyzing the case study
of Kevin Carter and his Pulitzer Prize winning photography, "Struggling Girl," did Carter make
the right decision? What ethical approach would a Buddhist take in this situation? What ethical
approach would a Catholic take in this situation?
Kevin Carter was a member of The Bang Bang Club, a South African photojournalist
group active during the apartheid. Their objective was to document the unknown happenings of
what was going on around them in South Africa during the civil war. They strived to be first in
the action, and usually right in the middle of gunfire. The group went to extreme measures in
order to capture photographs that would show the world the hardships, violence, and all around
devastating situations that people in Africa were facing during this traumatic time. Carter
believed that the power of the image could change the worlds perceptions of what they were

Stringini 3
unaware of. The mission of the club was to get the picture that would bring awareness to the
world at any cost (Oshburn, 2011).
In March, 1993, Carter and another member of The Bang Bang Club, traveled to Sudan to
photograph the full-scale famine caused by the civil war. In the village of Ayod, Carter happened
upon a heartbreaking sight: a little girl, bent over from hunger and dehydration, trying to make it
to the nearby United Nations feeding center. As she stopped to rest, a vulture landed nearby.
Careful not to disturb the vulture, he waited for twenty minutes until he had created the best
possible image: the vulture in close enough proximity and the best possible angle. Once he got
that image, he finally chased the vulture away. Carter left the young girl there alone on the
ground, without aiding her survival (AEC Commercial Photography, 2012).
The photograph was sold to The New York Times where it appeared for the first time on
March 26, 1993. Practically overnight, the photograph became famous and Carter became
notorious. After the photograph was published, a controversial issue had come into question:
What happened to the child after the photograph had been taken? Not even Carter could answer
that question. Within a matter of days after publication, hundreds of people began to contact the
newspaper asking about the childs fate. Eventually, the newspaper ran a special editors note in
order to address this controversy. The note read:
B

A picture last Friday with an article about Sudan showed a little Sudanese girl
who had collapsed from hunger on the trail to a feeding center in Ayod. A vulture lurked
behind her. Many readers have asked about the fate of the girl. The photographer reports
that she recovered enough to resume her trek after the vulture was chased away. It is not
known whether she reached the center (Hussary, 2012).

Stringini 4
This photograph was taken in Sudan during a difficult time of war; Kevin was working in a
time when photojournalists were told not to touch famine victims for fear of spreading disease.
Struggling Girl was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography in 1994. This
caused the public to be even more outraged. This award was meant to reward the work of the
best photojournalist of the year, was the actual photograph more important than the human being
depicted in it? To the public it seemed as though Carter was being rewarded despite his lack of
humanity.
Carter and his photograph received endless criticism. David Beresford of the British
newspaper The Guardian, recalled asking him, What did you do with the baby? Carter
replied, Nothing, there were thousands of them (Freedman, 2006). People were even more
outraged by this, not only because Kevin took the picture instead of chasing the vulture
immediately away, but also the fact that he did not help the girl afterwards. The St. Petersburg
Times in Florida wrote: "The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering,
might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene (AEC Commercial Photography,
2012). Many people believed that Kevin acted with no compassion at all towards the girl, since
he did not help her before nor after using her as the subject of his photograph. His actions were
perceived as a lack of humanity due to the fact that he waited for the vulture to be as close as
possible to the girl before taking the picture. The general public thought that it seemed as though
Kevin valued the importance of the photograph much more than the girls fate (Gortazar, 2010).
Unfortunately, Kevin Carters life spiraled out of control on July 27, 1994 when he took his
own life, just three months after he won the Pulitzer Prize. An expert from his suicide note reads:
B Im really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not
exist... depressed... without phone... money for rent... money for child support... money

Stringini 5
for debts... money!... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger
& pain... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of
killer executioners... I have gone to join Ken(who recently passed away) if I am that
lucky (AEC Commercial Photography, 2012).
There were multiple choices that could have been made in this situation. The first choice is
the choice that Carter made, taking the photograph, chasing away the vulture but do not give
further aid to the child. Another choice could have been to take the photograph and not help the
child. One could capture the photograph, chase away the vulture and help the child get to the
United Nations feeding center or at least making sure that she did get there. Lastly, one could
chase away the vulture instantly when you see it nearing the child, in turn, not capturing the
image, and then continuing to help the child to the United Nations feeding center.
Buddhism is often not classified as a religion because it does not teach theology, nor does
it declare a divinity, and it requires no faith. Instead, it revolves around the achievement of a
practical goal: the end of suffering (McGill). Buddhist ethics are centered on principles and
practices that help one act in ways that help, rather than harm. To live is to act, and our actions
can have either harmful or beneficial consequences for oneself and others (Ethics | The
Buddhist Centre).
Buddhism is guided by an ethical code consisting of five precepts, to balance the
negation virtues of precepts, there are also five positive practices that correspond to them
creating a complete practice of virtue. One positive practice that should be taken into account in
the case of Kevin Carter is the practice of loving kindness.. It is the moral responsibility for
every human being to perform some act of kindness on the appropriate occasion, whenever we
are in a position to do so. It is putting forth an effort to help others achieve the same happiness

Stringini 6
oneself has experienced. Another aspect of the loving-kindness virtue is compassion, which is
used alongside pity. What it means by this is one should strive to relieve others of their troubles
and sufferings. For example, the saving of lives is generally regarded as a manifestation of
compassion (Vajirananavarorasa). In this sense, because Carter did not help the young girl in a
way that would relieve her troubles and suffering nor bring her the same happiness that he has
been fortunate enough to experience, he did not practice the virtue of loving-kindness.
Another approach to Buddhist philosophy is a way that defines four truths about human
existence. These are known as the Four Noble Truths: the existence of suffering (dukkha), the
cause of suffering, the possibility of ceasing suffering, and the way to end suffering (Luong).
This perspective deals with the world as it is, and attempts to rectify it. The Four Noble Truths
deal with the suffering humanity faces, both physical suffering and mental suffering (PBS).
When applying these truths to journalism, a journalist grounded in Buddhist morals would be
guided by a concept presented in McGills report known as a journalism of healing (McGill).
In this concept journalists are aware of suffering in society. Buddhist journalists would have the
responsibility and intent of helping others overcome their personal sufferings, and helping
society heal the wounds caused by injustice. Therefore, Buddhist journalists could guide their
actions by asking themselves: does it help overcome individual and social suffering? (McGill).
Once again, Carters actions were not entirely guided by Buddhist morals. Although he was aware
of societies suffering of famine in Sudan during the war, and intended to bring that awareness to
the rest of the world through his photograph, he failed to help the girl overcome her personal
suffering.
Based on my understanding of Buddhism, I believe that the best application in this
situation would be that a Buddhist journalist would take the photograph then chase away the

Stringini 7
vulture and help aid the child in getting to the feeding center. With their responsibility to help
others overcome their personal suffering, it is clear that the Buddhist journalist would help the
child and a situation that is causing her to suffer. I also believe that based on Buddhists intent on
healing societies wounds and the many injustices in the world, they would take the photograph.
This would help bring awareness of the famine, suffering and social problem that had been
occurring in Sudan during the war in order to inspire the masses to help end this injustice. The
circumstances and elements that make up this image create a more powerful photograph than
other famine images that could be presented. Many people are particularly sensitive to
photographs involving children. Not only did the photograph depict tragedy and famine, but it
was a child. Due to these reasons I believe it will achieve the Buddhist goal of raising awareness
of societies injustices.
The Catholic faith is greatly governed by virtues. Virtues guide our conduct according to
the dictates of faith and reason, leading us toward freedom based on self-control and toward joy
in living a good moral life (United States Catholic Catechism). When looking at this particular
case, there are two Catholic virtues that primarily need to be applied when attempting to decide
what to do. The first virtue that should be applied to this case is justice, which is explained in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to
God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the virtue of religion. Justice toward
men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the
harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just
man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking
and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor (The Vatican Archives).

Stringini 8
This virtue emphasizes its overall goal of what is right for the common good. Therefore, the
social injustice of the famine in Sudan during this time would be seen as an injustice. This may
justify the fact that Carter took the image, could taking this image make the overall famine
situation better? Or help raise world awareness of this injustice? However, the issue of
compassion contradicts this. From a Catholic perspective, compassion would make the right
decision to put all else aside and aid the child at once. It also discusses good conduct towards
your neighbor, in this sense; Carter did not have good conduct when he did not further aid the
child in need.
The second Catholic virtue that must be applied to this case is charity. Charity is the
theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as
ourselves for the love of God. Charity upholds and purifies our human ability to love, and raises
it to the supernatural perfection of divine love (The Vatican Archives). Charity is considered to
be the most important theological virtue. It is an objective action of the will toward another
person. Charity is often seen as it was expressed in Matthew 22 verse 39: "like to this: Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself". Charity extends to the entire human race, making all people
equal. Therefore, this virtue would reinforce the decision to immediately help the child,
something that Carter failed to do. Even after failing to help the child immediately, Carter did not
exemplify the virtue of charity through his failure to further aid the child after chasing away the
vulture.
Another Catholic teaching that can be presented in this case study, is that Carter
performed a sin of omission. This sin is a failure to do what one ought to do. The Catholic faith
emphasizes the importance of helping those in need, therefore Carter ought to have helped the
child to the feeding center. Looking at this case from a deontological perspective, one does not

Stringini 9
know what the consequences will be, and can only act on ones principles. Carter would not know
if the photograph he took would be used or influence society, he also did not know what would
happen to the girl no matter how much aid he provided her with. However, based on Catholic
principles, I believe that a Catholic photojournalists decision would best be explained by the
verse in 1 John 3:17 that states: If any one of you has material possessions and sees a brother or
sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in you? Although their job is
important to them, I view it as their material possession. The Catholic faith is greatly driven by
their love of God and performing the works of God in their everyday lives, and therefore, to fail
to help this child in need, they are not showing the love of God. Due to this, I believe that a
Catholic would first chase away the vulture, and then continue to aid the child to the feeding
center, putting the needs of the child over the needs of their career.
Both the Buddhist perspective and the Catholic perspectives both follow a basic rule of
behavior, which governs how they are to treat others. They are motivated by charity and helping
those in need. Buddhists and Catholics both look to combat the many injustices in the world.
They both strive to end suffering of others. However, their views on suffering are different. In
Buddhism, there is no "problem of evil." Suffering is a normal part of life, but the nature of
suffering is determined by how one responds to it (McGill). Whereas in the Catholic faith, evil
and suffering is due to original sin. Pope John Paul II also explained the Catholic perspective on
suffering when he explained:
We could say that suffering is present in order to unleash love in the human person,
that unselfish gift of ones I on behalf of other people, especially those who suffer. The
world of human suffering unceasingly calls for, so to speak, another world: the world of

Stringini 10
human love; and in a certain sense man owes to suffering that unselfish love that stirs in
his heart and actions (Kaczor).
In this sense, it is the presence of suffering that helps us do what is good and right, it is directly
connected to the Catholic view of charity through this definition. Buddhism looks to end all
suffering, this is best done by ending the suffering of the masses, looking at the overall problem
of famine in Sudan. Their largest responsibility would be to help society heal the pains caused by
injustice, and in order to do so, they would need to bring awareness of this injustice to the
masses. As a result of this, I believe a Buddhist would prioritize taking the photograph to show
the world of this suffering in order to drive change. Contrastingly, Catholics would primarily be
driven by their principle of compassion. As a result of this, I believe they would prioritize the
well-being of the child instantly, and therefore putting the childs best interest first by helping her
and failing to capture the image. Another principle that the perspectives differ on is the Catholic
belief of sin, and seeing Carters failure of compassion and helping the child as a sin of omission.
The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism. They also believe that sin should not be
equated to suffering.
Based on the perspectives I have analyzed, I believe that Carter was ethically both right
and wrong. Like the Buddhist perspective presents, I agree that this photograph created public
awareness. This famine story was one that needed to be told. Carter presented, to the largest
audience possible, the traumatizing living circumstances that African children were enduring.
The world would not know this was happening, if Carter failed to photograph it. Although he did
not directly help the girl, by taking the photograph, he was telling the story. However, I also
believe that Carter was morally incorrect because of his inhumane actions and lack of
compassion, a principle that drives Catholic ethics. I believe that if I were in this situation, I

Stringini 11
would take the photograph, but then continue to provide aid to the child by chasing away the
vulture as well as helping the child to the Feeding Center in order to ensure her safety. The
biggest ethical mistake that Carter made was lack of respect for the human being and subject of
his photograph. He lacked sensitivity and compassion as he chose to put the photograph before
the person, just as the Catholic perspective presents.
The most knowledgeable objection that could be presented against my decision is from a
deontological standpoint. Since an individual does not know what the consequences of their
actions will be, they can only act on their principles. Since this method of moral decision-making
involves ones duties and obligations, one could argue that as a professional photojournalist, ones
duty is to take the photograph no matter the cost. To this I would argue: All journalists need to
practice balance. One shoots and if need be, one also puts down the camera to help those in need.
When placed in a situation where a photojournalist feels that he or she can help, it is his or her
moral obligation to do so. Ethically, a person should consider himself or herself a human being
first, and a journalist second, which I believe reflects the Catholic perspective. Yet as a
professional photojournalist, it is ethical to take the photographs until a photojournalist feels that
it is entirely necessary to provide aid, which greater reflects the Buddhist perspective.
Photojournalists should not completely ignore humanity for the sake of a photograph.

Stringini 12
Works Cited
AEC Commercial Photography. (2012, September). Kevin carter: The impact of
photojournalism. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from
http://kevincarterpresentation.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/hello-world/
Bersak, D. (2006, September). Ethics in photojournalism: Past, present, and future. Retrieved
November 20, 2015, from http://web.mit.edu/drb/Public/PhotoThesis/
Ethics | The Buddhist Centre. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from
https://thebuddhistcentre.com/text/ethics
Freedman, S. G. (2006). Letters to a young journalist. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved
November 20, 2015.
Gortazar, P. (2010). Ethical limits in documentary photography. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
Hussary, D. (2012). Ethically sound journalism?. Retrieved November 20, 2015,
from http://storify.com/dmarhuss/ethically-sound-journalism
Kaczor, C. (n.d.). A Pope's Answer to the Problem of Pain. Catholic Answers Magazine, 1-1.
Luong, M. (2011, September 1). Buddhist approach to journalistic responsibility.
Retrieved November 4, 2015, from
http://www.academia.edu/981396/Buddhist_approach_to_journalistic_responsibility
McGill, D. (2008, February 19). The Buddha, the Dharma and the Media. Retrieved
November 22, 2015, from http://www.mcgillreport.org/buddhamedia.htm
Oshburn, C. (2011, December 12). Media ethics and the printing of
controversialphotos. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
PBS. (2000, January 11). Buddhism: An Introduction. Retrieved December 1, 2015,
from http://www.pbs.org/edens/thailand/buddhism.htm

Stringini 13
The Catholic youth Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition. (2005). Winona,
MN: Saint Mary's Press.
The Vatican Archives. (n.d.). Catechism of the Catholic Church - The virtues. Retrieved
December 3, 2015, from
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
United States Catholic Catechism. (n.d.). Morality. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/morality/
Vajirananavarorasa, P. (n.d.). The Five PreceptsThe Buddhist Golden Rule. Retrieved
November 23, 2015, from http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/B%20%20Theravada/Ethics/The%20Five%20Precepts%20-%20The%20Buddhist%20Golden
%20Rule/five_precepts_the_buddhist_golde.htm