Modernity and the Notions of Public Interest, Ethics, and Law

This paper examines the meaning of modernity and the relations between the notions of public interest, ethics and law. By giving an example that raises this issue further, the realm of morality, professional ethics and law is discussed and whether their spheres of jurisdiction would overlap. It also explores the meanings and definitions of the key terms that are of most concern for this topic, and how they relate or differ from each other. A Singaporean example is also shown as evidence to support the discussion. Finally, a counter argument is provided with a reasonable response that follows with this argument. While scholars and philosophers have defined modernity in different ways, the emergence of modernity is also a very important aspect of the term. Before modernity came into prominence, there were the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. “The essence of modernity can be seen in humanity’s freeing itself from the bonds of the Middle Ages in that it frees itself to itself” (Heidegger, Young, & Haynes, 2002). Modernity refers to human beings starting to rationalize and think for themselves, rather than the traditional way of living life by the rules and teachings of their religion. In simpler terms, it is a shift from religious beliefs to scientific knowledge, as in man thinking by his own free will for himself. The stronghold of the Christian church decreased over the people and science began to be more accepted. The criticism of modernity is that it actually imprisons rather than liberates. Modernity gives rise to people’s opinion and free speech. Therefore, with free speech, restrictions are put into place to protect the freedom of the public. The term modernization refers to the increasing use of science and new technologies, and the political, social and cultural changes that followed through from these developments of modernization (Mann, 2010). Hence modern society is considered modern because of rapid change which is the essence of modern

References: Archard, D. (1998). Privacy, the Public Interest, and a Prurient Public. In M. Kieran (Ed.), Media Ethics (pp. 82-96). London, England: Routledge. Breit, R. (2007). Professional Communication, Ethics and Accountability. In Law and Ethics for Professional Communicators (pp. 307-321). Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths. Channel News Asia. (2012). Ex-MOE scholar charged with having sex with minor. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1211651/1/.html Downs, A. (1962). The public interest: Its meaning in a democracy. Social Research, 29(1), 1-36. Heidegger, M., Young, J., & Haynes, K. (2002). Off the beaten track: Cambridge Univ Pr. Mann, T. (2010). What is meant by “Modernity”? Retrieved July 4, 2012, from http://asp.uibk.ac.at/asp/2010/LVUL/Mann,%20What%20is%20meant%20by%20Modernity%20.%20.%20..pdf McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest: Sage Publications Ltd. Nester, W.R. (2010). Modernity and Its Discontents. In Globalization – A Short History of the Modern World (pp. 9-13). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. OrganizationOfAmericanStates. (2007). What Is The Law? Information Exchange Network for Mutual Assitance in Criminal Matters and Extradition Retrieved July 4, 2012, from http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/can/en_can_mla_what.html Preston, N. (2007). Understanding ethics: Federation Press.