AOL 6

Applying Moral Rules of Deontological and Teleological Justice Ethical Theories

[See Case 7.3: Mukesh Ambani: The New Media Moghul in India]
Table 11.5A: Applying Deontological Justice Rules to Justify RILs takeover of Media House Network 18
Justic Ethical Theory of
Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Deontological
e
Deontological Justice
Justice:
Rules
Did RIL abide by these while
Did the takeover outcome of Media
taking over Network 18 Media and House Network 18 by RIL follow:

R01

Kantian Formalism: Act

inasmuch as your act is
motivated by a law that
can apply to all.

R02

Kantian Formalism: Act

inasmuch as your act is
grounded on moral
reasons that convince all.

R03

Principle of Deontological
Justice: Safeguard
economic and social
rights and duties of the
marginalized

R04

Prince of Deontological
Justice: Also safeguard
rights and duties of
corporate executives

R05

Situationanism: When
rights/duties conflict, the
actual situation should
determine the decision ad
judgment but one must
own the act and its
consequences.
Existentialism: When
amidst uncertainty, risk
and ambiguity, right or
wrong, truth or falsehood,
and good or evil cannot
be clearly distinguished,
then act in the midst of
doubt.
Legalism: Legitimacy of
government laws and
industry ordinances

R06

R07

R08

Contractualism: Binding
capacity of freely agreed
on contracts.

R09

Parenesis: A Code of

TV18:
Principles of Universalizability?
YES: RILs decision was a
strategic one to complement its 4G
business and the takeover was
agreed upon by the owners to
starve off competition.
Principles of Reversibility? YES:
RILs executives have maintained
that it was not for the sake of
controlling a media house but to
complement their 4G business.

Principle of Deontological Justice

among the marginalize? YES: The
Competition Commission of India
had ruled that RILs control of
Network18 and TV18, does not
negatively affect competition.
Principle of Deontological Justice
among the corporate executives:
YES, it looks at the long term
benefits of its own employees in
the telecom sector.

Principles of Universalizability? YES:

Similar situations had been faced by the
Washington Post also where Warren
Buffet had to bail them out. Due to
intense capex needed, corporate takeover
is essential.
Principles of Universalizability? NO:
For the telecom sector it may be a
justifiable reason, but to other smaller
media houses it is stiff competition and
for readers there is a question on the news
objectivity.
Principle of Deontological Justice among
the marginalized? NO: To other smaller
media houses it is stiff competition. It
may be viewed as RIL is trying to limit its
competition.

Principle of Existentialism: YES:

It is unclear whether RIL has
taken over Network 18 only for
strategic reasons or for
profitability remains to be seen. So
for now, they can be given the
benefit of doubt.

Principle of Deontological Justice among

all the corporate executives: YES,
because Raghav Bala, owner of Network
18 was not able to fund the network
anymore and hence was bailed out by
RIL.
Principle of Existential Situationism: NO:
It is yet to be seen if RIL upholds the
objectivity of the media and the liberal
theory. Furthermore, whether RIL has
taken over Network 18 only for strategic
reasons or for profitability remains to be
seen.
Principle of Existentialism: NO: It is
indeed true that this takeover will indeed
harm the competition as it is difficult to
compete with the financial resources of
RIL. Thus for other stakeholders too it
remains to be seen if news from their
network remains objective or not.

Compliance to legitimately

Compliance to legitimately promulgated

promulgated and enforced

government laws and industry
ordinances? YES, because CCI
ruled in the favour of RIL.
Compliance to freely agree on
contracts? YES: All the terms and
conditions of the contract were
honored and cross verified by CCI.
Is such takeovers ruled by credible

and enforced government laws and

industry ordinances? NO, rulings of the
CCI can be influenced by the lobbying of
huge corporate houses like RIL.
Compliance to freely agree on contracts
to help the marginalized? NO: How the
contracts safeguards the rights of the
smaller players is not to be seen.
Compliance to agree upon codes of

Principle of Existential
Situationism: YES: The principle
of maximization of wealth was
followed by RIL as it aimed to take
control of the telecom sector in the
long run.

ethics that counsels and

exhorts action. The
obligation is parenetic or
hortatory.

and valid industry and corporate

ethical codes of conduct? NO:
CCI looks only at the economic
point of view but not socio-cultural
ones.

conduct? NO: There is no such firm law

in place which takes into account the
socio-cultural implications of such
takeovers on freedom of speech and news
objectivity.

Applying Teleological Justice Rules to Justifying the takeover of Media House

Network 18 by RIL
Justic
e
Rules

Ethical Theory of
Teleological Justice

R10

Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Teleological

Justice:
Did RIL during/after
takeover of Network18 treat
its stakeholders by:

Did the takeover Outcomes of

Network 18 treat others by:

Hedonism: Satisfaction
and Pleasure of all
(Jeremy Bentham)

Principle of Universal
Hedonism: Did the takeover
promote happiness and
satisfaction of all? NO: Most
of the smaller media houses
were not at all pleased.

Principle of Universal Hedonism: Did

the takeover promote happiness and
satisfaction of all others, especially
the marginalized players? NO: The
takeover caused a lot of
dissatisfaction among the other
players, especially the smaller players
as they couldnt compete with RIL.

R11a

Utilitarianism (J. S.
Mill): Maximize utility
of all

Principle of utility-maximization of
the greatest number fulfilled? NO:
The media is supposed to be objective
and impartial in its reporting. The
takeover jeopardized this for the
stakeholders of the society.

R11b

Consequentialism (E.
Anscombe 1920-2001):
Maximally reduce
harmful consequences
to all.

Principle of utilitymaximization of the greatest

number fulfilled? NO: No.
Over here the interests of
mainly the Reliance group and
Raghav Balal was considered
but not the other stakeholders.
Maximize Utility of good
Consequences to all? NO:
Although bankruptcy of
Raghav Balal was mitigated by
the RIL, it also ensured that
the smaller media houses
would not be able to compete
with them.
Principle of happiness of the
maximum fulfilled? NO: This
is because the employability of
the existing people at Network
18 was in jeopardy and so was
the objectivity of the news
reported.

R12

Eudemonism
(Aristotle): Principle of
happiness of the
maximum

Did takeover of Network 18 minimize

harmful consequences to all innocent
stakeholders? NO: To other smaller
media houses it represented stiff
competition. It may be viewed as RIL is
trying to limit its competition and trying
to modify the news in its favor.

Principle of happiness of the

maximum fulfilled? NO: Because the
interests of the other stakeholders
such as the smaller players were not
taken into account while considering
the takeover.

Assessing the takeover of media house Network 18 by RILby Applying Moral Rules Based
on Distributive Justice Ethical Theories
[See Case7.3: Mukesh Ambani: The New Media Moghul in India]
Distrib
utive
Justice
Rules
R13

Ethical Theory
of Distributive
Justice (DJ)

Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Distributive Justice:

Did the National or International
markets treat Indias Superrich by:

Did Wealth Maximization Outcomes

of Indias Superrich treat others by:

Formal Justice:
Egalitarianism

Aristotles Canon of Equality: The level of

equality among the media houses through
takeover? YES.

R14

Socialist Justice

R15

Naturalist Justice

R16

Retributive
Justice

The Canon of Need: The level of need among

the big media houses? Yes. Aditya Birla
controls India Today.
The Canon of Natural Ability: The level of
innate merit or ability among the media
houses? YES.
The Canon of Effort: The level of effort of
among the media? YES. Media Houses have
cut throat competition.

The level of equality among the others (i.e.,

smaller media houses? NO: For smaller
media houses it is difficult to compete with
RIL.
Their level of need? No, for smaller media
houses.

R17

Capitalist Justice

R18

Libertarian
Justice

The Canon of Productivity: The level of

contribution of the superrich? Yes, and far
beyond.
The Canon of Social Utility: The level of social
value of the bigger media houses? YES.

R19

Libertarian
Justice

The Canon of Supply-demand: The level of

market-exchange value of the takeover? YES.

R20

Individual Justice

Reschers Canon of Legitimate Claims: The

level of legitimate claims of the Media? Yes, the
content will be a strategic fit for RIL 4G plans.

The level of contribution of the nonsuperrich? NO: Until wealth maximization

stimulates the contribution of others
Their level of social value? No, the takeover
doesnt equalize the social value of all media
houses.
Their level of market-exchange value? YES.
The demand for news is high even for smaller
firms.
The level of legitimate claims of the smaller
media firms? NO: It may also be viewed as a
method to stifle competition.

R21

Fair Opportunist
Justice

Rawls Equality Principle: Did the takeover

offer equal opportunity to all? No.

Did the takeover offer equal opportunity to

all? No, smaller firms do lose out.

R22

Libertarian
Egalitarian
Justice

Nullifying undeserved advantages among all

stakeholders? No. RIL can now modify the
news content to its wish.

R23

Libertarian
Justice

Rawls Difference Principle: Did the takeover

nullify undeserved advantages among all
stakeholders? NO. Most of the bigger firms
seemingly had undeserved advantages.
Nozicks Principle of Distributive Justice: By
the level of original entitlements of the
superrich? YES.

R24

Non-malfeasance
Justice
Preemptive
Justice
Protective Justice

Principle of Strict Liability: Doing no harm or

evil by the takeover? YES.

Ones level of original entitlements? NO:

Most others in India have their original
level of entitlements progressively diminished
because of wealth maximization of the few.
Doing no harm or evil to others? No, this is
yet to be seen.

Principle of Preventive Justice: Preventing all

evil by the takeover? YES.

Preventing all evil by the takeover? No, not

until RIL can provide objective news.

Principle of Protective Justice: Protecting the

news from subjectivity? NO.

R27

Procedural
Justice;
Corrective Justice

R28

Beneficent Justice

Principle of Procedural Justice and Corrective

Justice: Was the takeover possible because of
just procedures for correcting current
structured injustice systems? YES.
Principle of Beneficent Justice: Enabling the
bigger firms in doing or promoting good to
others? Yes, if they want to do so.

Protecting the news from subjectivity? No,

Aditya Birla or RIL is yet to prove its
authenticity in objective news making.
Did the takeover set up just procedures for
news making for the others in India? NO,
because it doesnt consider all the
stakeholders.
Did the takeover empower others to do or
promote good in India? No.

R25
R26

Their level of innate merit or ability? Yes:

Merit and ability of the marginal players are
same too.
Their level of effort? No: It is difficult for the
smaller media houses to compete with the
larger ones.