 In the previous video, we talked about consequentialism and utilitarianism, ethical theories that focus on the outcomes of one's choices and actions. Let's dive into these theories a little further by looking at criticisms of utilitarianism and what this theory means in our current media environment. One of the most famous criticisms of utilitarianism came from John Rawls, who is perhaps the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. This book, A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, is a classic. In the book, he presents two principles of justice which should guide the functioning of any society. The first principle, the liberty principle, calls for a system of basic freedoms and equal rights for everyone. Consider for instance the principles of freedom of speech, the pursuit of happiness and political liberty. Political liberty means that everyone with similar skills and motivations should be able to vote and run for office, regardless of their social class. Rawls' second principle is the difference principle. This principle states that societal inequalities can be justified, as long as they are to the benefit of the least well-off and of society as a whole. So while utilitarianism justifies principles by asking what is best for the greatest number of people, Rawls places justice for all above utility as the most important goal in society. John Rawls also developed a thinking tool for coming to the most socially justifiable solution, especially when we have to make decisions about dividing resources, the veil of ignorance. According to Rawls, we can come to the fairest decisions if we use all our knowledge about the world and our rational thinking skills, but at the same time ignore who we are as a person. So try this with me, forget your age, gender, race, intelligence, health, wealth and forget the country where you were born. How would you divide resources if there is a possibility that you are one of the poor or unhealthy? Probably in a way that would benefit the least well-off, right? Another criticism of utilitarianism came from philosopher and the third president of the United States of America, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson warned that being too utilitarian could result in the tyranny of the majority. If you let people decide on what is best for the majority of people, this could result in paternalistic, racist or sexist worldviews and practices that benefit the majority but harm minorities. Let's now take a look at what consequentialism and utilitarianism could look like in our current media climate. With the rise of technological devices such as computers and smartphones, we are now able to look up any type of information at any moment and be in constant contact with others. This has empowered us and made us smarter than ever before, and has resulted in many benefits for many people. From a consequentialist or utilitarian viewpoint, this seems to be a good development, right? Well, some people have argued that it can lead to cyber-centrism. Cyber-centrism refers to prioritizing tools over the environment. It also means placing efficiency and convenience above moral concerns and values such as trust, human contact, privacy and safety. It has also been said we might become technological determinists, where the mere use of technology may become the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and we might lose track of the possible harm it does to others. According to this is the so-called knowledge gap, a negative consequence of media technology that creates and increases inequalities between people in terms of knowledge. Those who already have access to knowledge can increase such knowledge through technology, whereas those who do not have access to knowledge stay behind. Examples of such harm and possible solutions are further discussed in another part of our MOOC, which deals with communication ethics in practice. But first, let's learn a bit more about how other great thinkers thought about ethical decision-making, starting with virtue ethics in the next video.