An Essay by Mohammadreza Vaez Shahrestani: “The Sorrowful Tale of Our Celebrities!”

The Sorrowful Tale of Our Celebrities!

An Ethical Reflection on the Case of Rambod Javan and Setareh Eskandari on Social Media

Mohammadreza Vaez Shahrestani[1]

Rambod Javan and Negar Javaherian's trip to Canada for the birth of their child, the insults hurled at Setareh Eskandari abroad for removing her hijab, and Mehdi Hashemi's second wife—all of these constitute the adventures and sorrowful tale of our celebrities on social media these days. These issues have sparked a wave of criticism and harsh, even insolent reactions, while also prompting some to rise in their defense. In response to these behaviors, one group, a minority, believes that individuals' private lives concern only themselves, and that interfering in people's private lives, judging them, or disseminating any film or photo of their personal lives in places where they reside temporarily or permanently is an explicit violation of their privacy; such an act is not informing but rather an indecent exposure and an unethical matter. Thus, in this group's view, the personal space and private lives of celebrities must be respected. The second group, which encompasses almost the majority of critics, believes that the emphasis on the concept of "privacy" is fundamentally a diversionary point in such issues, and that the main motive in revealing such images is to expose "lies, duplicity, and hypocrisy," and that such revelations are the primary mission of journalists and social media.

In this context, in August 2017, in a note titled "A Reflection on an Ethical Dilemma Regarding Social Media: The Case of Azadeh Namdari"[2], I examined such ethical dilemmas related to technology (social media) and analyzed the question of whether the dissemination of Azadeh Namdari's images on social media constituted an invasion of her privacy or a necessity for transparency and critique of her actions—a critique that would lead to the condemnation of hypocritical and sanctimonious behaviors in society. Now, in this note, while recounting and recalling discussions from that piece, I intend to examine the recent social media cases under the conclusion of that note and thereby devise a more comprehensive framework when confronting such ethical dilemmas. In fact, the key question in this note is: in the aforementioned ethical dilemmas, between respecting the privacy of celebrities and famous figures versus invading their privacy for the public good, which one should be chosen? Or is such a choice even possible in principle?

Now let us take a closer look at the reason behind the newsworthiness of the cases of Rambod Javan, Setareh Eskandari, and Mehdi Hashemi on social media. In the view of the second group, Rambod Javan has consistently emphasized slogans of love for the homeland and patriotism on his show Khandevaneh, and for this reason, traveling to Canada for the birth of his child contradicts his usual statements and slogans on the program. Also, according to this group, considering Setareh Eskandari's remarks in support of wearing the hijab in Iran versus removing it in Turkey, her behavior is contradictory and hypocritical. But the third case is the official announcement of Mehdi Hashemi's second marriage. An individual who, unlike the other two cases, has apparently not exhibited contradictory behavior and has not previously spoken or reacted in praise of monogamy or the wrongfulness of a second marriage; yet his remarriage to a television actress has still brought a wave of criticism and sarcasm. In fact, in this case, the second group believes that Mehdi Hashemi officially announced his remarriage on social media without having previously released news of his official separation from Golab Adineh, and that such an approach will destroy the stigma of bigamy in society and, in a way, lead to the normalization of such behaviors.

In the author's view, analyzing and examining such events requires careful scrutiny and precision, and one cannot simply pass judgment and issue a blanket ruling on matters of this kind. Essentially, when analyzing the ethical dilemmas born of the application of technology, two points must be investigated. First, the ethical dilemma in question should be analyzed and examined logically; second, the parties involved and the degree of value of each should be examined.[3] In this space, I will examine the case of Setareh Eskandari and Rambod Javan in comparison with the case of Azadeh Namdari.

1) The Case of Setareh Eskandari:

To reach my intended goal regarding the case of Setareh Eskandari, I will restate here the form of reasoning I presented in the previous note on the case of Azadeh Namdari:

"If we wish to analyze this matter logically with regard to the parties involved, we will encounter the following form of reasoning:

1_ Azadeh Namdari was present without a hijab with her family in a park during a trip to Switzerland.

2_ Photographing and filming well-known individuals in private spaces and publishing it on social networks by media professionals and journalists, without their permission and knowledge, is an invasion of their privacy.

3_ Invading the privacy of well-known individuals will have unpredictable and usually irreparable consequences and repercussions in their personal and social lives.

4_ Journalists should not invade the privacy of well-known individuals.

5_ Ms. Azadeh Namdari has always been a promoter and encourager of the hijab on social media and television.

6_ If a well-known individual is always a promoter of the hijab in their social life but is seen without a hijab in public places in their private life, this act is an instance of hypocrisy, lying, and duplicity.

7_ Exposing the unveiling of someone who has been a promoter and encourager of the hijab is an exposure of hypocrisy and duplicity and serves the public interest.

8_ Journalists must expose hypocrisy, lying, and duplicity in society.

9_ From items (1) to (4), it can be concluded that exposing the photos of Azadeh Namdari is an unethical act.

10_ From items (5) to (8), it can be concluded that exposing her photos is an ethical act.

11_ Items (9) and (10) contradict each other.

As you can see, when logically analyzing the situation at hand, in order to understand what action is correct and ethical and what action is incorrect and unethical, we are faced with a logical contradiction."

Although in the case of Setareh Eskandari, as with the case of Azadeh Namdari, we are faced with the issue of unveiling abroad; and this while Setareh Eskandari, in a television program in Iran in the past, praised her official attire in Iran and said she has no problem with such attire. However, the very important point that has been neglected here and must be noted is the difference that exists in the case of Setareh Eskandari compared to Azadeh Namdari in proposition number six of the above form of reasoning.

Setareh Eskandari was never a continuous or official advocate and promoter of hijab in Iran; she merely offered her personal view on dress in the country in an interview, stating that she has no problem with hijab. This differs from the case of Azadeh Namdari, a capable presenter who was known as a promoter of hijab on television programs and had an official platform to present her views. Moreover, even if we set this point aside, isn’t the criterion for judging and deciding about people supposed to be their present state? If so, consider the possibility that although Setareh Eskandari made such a claim on that television program, she later regretted her statement, or her view changed entirely afterward. Consequently, since she was not an official promoter of hijab through a television platform and merely expressed her personal opinion on the matter in one program—taking into account the possibility that people’s views may change over time—no one can necessarily conclude, by comparing Setareh Eskandari’s behavior abroad with her earlier remarks about hijab on a television program, that her behavior is immoral and hypocritical. Unless, upon her return from the trip, she once again emphasizes her previous statements in such a way that one could explicitly infer that she exhibits dual and hypocritical behavior inside and outside the country.

Someone might argue that, generally speaking, by adopting such a perspective (the change of people’s views over time), one can never compare individuals’ past and present words and actions and consequently pass judgment. If such a claim is made, the author’s view on the manner of judgment and the reactions of most people regarding Setareh Eskandari’s behavior and similar cases becomes clear. In truth, we cannot so easily judge people solely based on one conversation on a television program and a contradictory behavior abroad; unless that statement or that contradictory behavior has been clearly repeated over time—that is, similar to the case of Azadeh Namdari, in which, of course, as I have explained in detail in the previous note, different conclusions can be drawn depending on the type of ethical worldview used as the criterion for examination.[4]

2) The Case of Rambod Javan:

In the case of Rambod Javan, if we wish to analyze it logically with regard to the parties involved in this affair, we will encounter the following form of argument:

1_ Rambod Javan, along with his wife, traveled to Canada to give birth to their child (assuming the truth of this claim).

2_ Generally, interfering in people’s personal lives, and especially judging their private matters such as the birthplace of their child, constitutes an invasion of others’ privacy.

3_ Invading the privacy of public figures will have unpredictable and usually irreparable consequences in their personal and social lives.

4_ Journalists, media professionals, and ordinary people should not invade the privacy of public figures.

5_ Rambod Javan, on the television program Khandevaneh, continuously and repeatedly promoted and encouraged people toward patriotic slogans such as love of the homeland and protecting and caring for it.

6_ If a public figure, in their social life, is always a promoter of love of the homeland and patriotism, but in their personal life, due to the economic, social, and educational hardships and problems of their country, gives birth to their child in another country, this act constitutes an instance of hypocrisy and duplicity.

7_ Exposing the hypocrisy and duplicity of someone who has been a promoter and encourager of love of the homeland and patriotism serves the public interest.

8_ Journalists, media professionals, and ordinary people should engage in exposing hypocrisy, lies, and duplicity in society.

9_ From points (1) to (4), it can be concluded that interfering in Rambod Javan's personal and private life is an immoral act.

10_ From points (5) to (8), it can be concluded that interfering in Rambod Javan's personal and private life is a moral act.

11_ Points (9) and (10) contradict each other.

Now that we are not reaching a conclusion through the logical analysis of the subject at hand, it is better to further scrutinize and adjust the components of this event through proposed approaches to addressing ethical dilemmas.

The first approach is the virtue-based ethical approach. In this approach, moral characteristics such as honesty, integrity, compassion, respect for others and their rights, etc., are the reference for decision-making and choice. When using such an approach, we will again encounter the problem of logical contradiction. Because according to the first group's view, respecting the privacy of others is a virtue; therefore, violating the privacy of others is reprehensible and immoral, and conversely, based on the second group's view, virtue dictates that lying and hypocrisy be fought against in society. Thus, this approach will also not be responsive to this issue.[5]

The second approach is the consequence-based approach. In other words, in this approach, consequences form the foundation of ethical decision-making. In the various readings of this ethical perspective, an act is often considered moral if it yields the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Examining an ethical dilemma based on this approach requires estimating the sum of all impacts on all individuals involved in the matter, in order to clarify which decision has the best consequence. Considering such an approach, we return to the issue under discussion. An individual holding such a view, when comparing the two sides of the ethical dilemma in question, compares the following two states:

1_ Exposing Rambod Javan's trip and condemning his contradictory behavior will lead to the condemnation and denunciation of duplicity and hypocrisy in society and has great public benefit for many people in society.

2_ Such an exposure has irreparable consequences for him, both in his personal life and social life; Rambod Javan will probably no longer be able to host the popular show Khandevaneh in the future; he will no longer have popularity among the people; talk about him will become the topic of various circles; in his personal life, he will likely suffer from depression and painful consequences, and so on.

As can be seen, the second approach, presupposing Rambod Javan's dual behavior in his personal and social life and that he must pay the price for this contradictory and hypocritical behavior, deems the public benefit more preferable and ignores the consequences of this exposure on his personal and social life. This is because proponents of this belief hold that such exposures in society will lead to the condemnation of such behaviors and prevent their occurrence in the future.[6]

Finally, the third approach is the rule-based approach. In this approach, rules are considered the central core of ethical decision-making. For example, the rule "Do not kill," "Always be truthful," and so on. Immanuel Kant is one of the most important famous philosophers who proposed the rule-based perspective in the field of ethics. According to his categorical imperative, it can be said: "Always act in such a way that you could wish everyone else to act in the same manner." Now, we can address the third group's view on the issue at hand:

Finally, there is a group that essentially considers famous individuals, including politicians and artists, to lack a “private sphere” in the conventional sense, and believes that the private sphere of politicians should not remain protected because they are connected to power and are more exposed to corruption, and that artists and celebrities, since they sometimes use part of their private sphere as a means of earning income and gaining fame, have a lesser private sphere, and the responsibility for any potential violation and intrusion into that part of the private sphere that has taken on a public aspect lies with them.[7]

Now suppose, in accordance with the above reasoning and based on Kant’s categorical imperative, we were to establish such a rule: “Journalists may always intrude upon the private sphere of prominent individuals.” Now, we must see whether, according to Kant’s categorical imperative, such a rule would be ethical or not?! In a society where journalists could always place the private lives of prominent individuals under a microscope—not necessarily for the sake of public benefit, transparency, and oversight, but in order to deal with marginalia to boost their own work and attract more audiences—certainly, a journalist who is also a prominent individual would not be safe from such an intrusion into their private sphere. In other words, they too could not will that everyone should behave in this way! Therefore, such a rule again does not seem ethical.

One way to resolve such an ethical dilemma in this specific case is to restrict and further restrict the above rule. For example, we could say:

“In cases where prominent individuals, in their personal lives, behave contrary to what they display in their social lives and encourage and urge people toward, such that this behavior is interpreted as duplicity, lying, and hypocrisy, journalists and ordinary people may intrude upon their private sphere in order to expose such unethical instances.”

It seems that this version of the ethical rule is more consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative, and everyone can behave in this way for the purpose of having a more ethical society. By establishing such a rule, prominent individuals, including film actors, television presenters, athletes, and politicians, will also know that their private sphere and personal lives are secure as long as nothing contrary to what they encourage and urge people toward in their social lives emanates from them. That is, their private lives, like those of others, are their own concern, but if, in their social lives compared to their personal lives, they unethically commit hypocrisy, duplicity, and lying, they must be held accountable in public and before public opinion. For any claim in social life places a heavy responsibility on their shoulders, and they must be careful about what they say and do. It is quite clear that a prominent individual, compared to ordinary people, just as they enjoy more social advantages and benefits due to their fame, must also exercise greater care and caution in their personal and private lives.[8]

.

---

.

[1] Philosophy researcher, University of Bonn ([email protected])

[2] See: A Reflection on an Ethical Dilemma in Social Media; The Case of Azadeh Namdari

[3] See:

Vries, M.J.de., (2005), Teaching about Technology (An introduction to the Philosophy of Technology for Nonphilosopher), Springer, Chapter. 5.

[4] See: A Reflection on an Ethical Dilemma in Social Media; The Case of Azadeh Namdari

[5] See: A Reflection on a Moral Dilemma in Social Media; The Case of Azadeh Namdari

[6] See: "A Reflection on a Moral Dilemma in Social Media; The Case of Azadeh Namdari"

[7] See: "On the Occasion of the Publication of Azadeh Namdari's Photos in Switzerland",

[8] See: A Reflection on a Moral Dilemma in Social Media; The Case of Azadeh Namdari

.

---

.