The Canteen Photograph
The editor of a school magazine, Sana, receives an anonymous letter with a photograph showing a canteen worker handling food after cleaning the floor. The worker's face is visible. Sana verifies the photo's date and location with a friend who works in the canteen. The canteen manager threatens to sue if the photo is published; the worker's family depends on the job. Sana's staff is divided: one group says publish because students' health is at risk; another says withhold because the worker did not consent and may be unfairly blamed for a systemic problem. Sana had promised the source that no name would be revealed, but the source is not the worker. The magazine has two pages left and the printer's deadline is tomorrow. The principal asks Sana to justify her decision using at least one Western and one Indian moral framework, and to state the strongest objection to her own choice.
1. Apply Kant's categorical imperative to Sana's decision. Use both the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity.
Read the worked answer
Kant's formula of universal law: Sana must ask whether the maxim of her action can be universalised. If she publishes to protect health, the maxim might be 'publish verified safety information even when it may harm an individual who is not the main cause'. Universalised, this is coherent; a school magazine could function. But if her maxim is 'publish an identifiable worker's photo to create a scandal without giving him a chance to respond', universalising it would undermine trust in the magazine. The humanity formula forbids treating the worker merely as a means. Publishing with his face visible, without response or context, uses him as an instrument of the story. Kant would also stress the promise to the source, but the source's identity is not at stake; the worker's dignity is. A Kantian could permit publication if the face is blurred, the systemic issue is named, and the worker is given a right of reply - because then he is treated as an end.
2. Apply Mill's utilitarianism and the Gītā's account of nishkama karma and lokasaṅgraha. Where do they converge and diverge?
Read the worked answer
Mill's utilitarianism asks which action produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Publishing may prevent food poisoning and improve canteen conditions; withholding protects one worker's job but leaves a health risk. The calculation must include the worker's family, the source's trust, the magazine's credibility, and the risk of unfair blame. If the photo is published with the face blurred and the systemic cause identified, the expected harm is lower and the public benefit higher. The Gītā's nishkama karma adds a different test: Sana should do her svadharma as a truthful editor, without attachment to praise or fear of the manager, and with lokasaṅgraha - concern for the welfare of all. That supports publishing the verified facts, but not with malice or sensationalism. The two frameworks converge on public welfare, but diverge on motive: Mill assesses outcomes, while the Gītā assesses detachment from the fruits of action and fidelity to duty.
3. Recommend a decision and state the strongest objection to it. How would you answer that objection?
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: publish a verified report with the worker's face blurred, name the systemic hygiene failure, quote the manager's response, and protect the source. This satisfies the Kantian requirement not to use the worker merely as a means, the utilitarian aim of reducing harm, and the Gītā's detached duty. The strongest objection is that blurring may reduce accountability and that the real cause is management; a fair story should target the system, not the individual. A second objection is that even a blurred image may identify the worker in a small school. The reply is that accountability should attach to the canteen policy, not to a low-paid worker, and that the magazine can publish the verified text even if the image is unusable. If the only available photo is unblurred and the deadline cannot be extended, Sana should withhold the image, because the right to inform does not require sacrificing an identifiable person.