Please check the actual laws of the country in which you’re shooting. Just because an action is ethical doesn’t make it legal, and just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical. Legality refers to actions that are permitted by law, while ethics pertains to the principles of right and wrong based on moral standards, but that’s a whole different article, and quite frankly I’m still recovering from this one.
Back in early 2024, during my conversation with Bob Patterson, he asked me if I had any photography projects planned. Being a philosophy geek, I said that I intended to write an article on the ethics of street photography, but getting it done turned out to be a much harder task than I’d first envisaged. Finally after almost two years of procrastinating like a university student nearing their finals, here it is! I hope you find it useful. Please get in touch if you have any criticisms, comments, or Leica Monochroms you want rid of ;-).
As I’m sure you already know, street and documentary photography can be ridiculously powerful ways of telling visual stories, and some photographers’ images have literally changed the course of history, but for the rest of us mere mortals who just love the genre, the big nagging question is: “Am I an unethical creepy weirdo because I like taking photos of strangers in public?”
The short answer is no, but if you want to understand why, keep reading and I’ll lead you deep down a philosophical rabbit hole. Brace yourself because the fallout from this knowledge spreads way beyond just photography.
What are Ethics?
Ethics can be understood as a set of principles that guide human behaviour, particularly concerning what is considered right and wrong. Ethics seeks to establish a framework for understanding moral behaviour and guiding actions in a way that is consistent and beneficial for individuals and society as a whole. It should be based on logical consistency and empirical evidence.
Unethical behaviour refers to actions that go against moral principles and accepted standards of conduct. It involves acting in ways that are dishonest, corrupt, or otherwise morally wrong.
Moral principles are fundamental guidelines that help individuals determine what is right and wrong, guiding their behaviour and decision-making. They are based on a universal and logically consistent set of rules that apply to everyone with capacity. Here are the three acid tests any moral rule has to pass in order to be taken seriously. (borrowed with affection and only minor plagiarism from Stefan Molyneux’s book ‘Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics’, or ‘UPB’ if you want to sound clever down at the pub):
- Nothing exists except people: Concepts like ‘the government,’ ‘a country,’ or ‘society’ are merely labels for groups of individuals. Only people within these constructs act, and so moral rules apply only to people, not abstract concepts. There can be no exceptions for race, class, age, job title, uniform, or being a King.
- What is good for one must be good for all: Moral rules must be universally applicable. If an action is deemed ‘good,’ it must be good for everyone, not just specific people or groups. This ensures that moral principles rise above mere opinion and preference.
- What is bad for one must be bad for all: Conversely, if an action is considered wrong for one person, it must be wrong for everyone. This consistency ensures that moral principles are not selectively applied based on personal or cultural preferences.
These principles help ensure that moral judgments are not arbitrary but are based on a consistent and universal framework.
The Non-Aggression Principle
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is a core tenet of philosophy, which asserts that the initiation of force, or violence against others is inherently wrong. The initiation of force refers to the act of starting or instigating violence or coercion against another person. This can include physical violence, threats, or any form of coercion that violates an individual’s autonomy. According to the Non-Aggression Principle, individuals should not engage in actions that harm others, except in cases of self-defence. Aggression, defined as the initiation of force, or coercion against others, is morally unacceptable and serves as a foundational ethical guideline, emphasizing voluntary interactions and mutual respect. Violence is the physical manifestation of force, often resulting in harm or injury to others. So, to summarise: Punching someone in the face? Bad. Threatening them? Bad. Stealing their property? Bad. Quietly taking a photo of someone from six metres away with a 35 mm lens? …Not bad.
Understanding Property Rights
Many philosophers argue that property rights originate from natural rights, which are inherent to individuals. According to this view, property is the logical extension of your ownership of your own body. You own yourself, the fruits of your labour and the things you homestead, (first-use/mix your labour with) or peacefully trade for. That’s it. No initiation of force required. A photograph of you standing on a public pavement doesn’t remove one atom from your body, doesn’t take your wallet, doesn’t delete your bank account, and doesn’t stop you using or enjoying anything you legitimately own. Your likeness in public simply isn’t property in the ethical sense, any more than the sound of your voice drifting across the street is. If someone tried to claim ownership of the air molecules that carry their voice (or the photons bouncing off their face), the entire idea of property would collapse into absurdity. Under UPB, property rights are rock-solid, universal, and limited to tangible (or at least excludable) things you can actually control without initiating force on everyone else. Public appearances, in this sense, fail that test spectacularly.
So what are the most common concerns relating to street and documentary photographers?
Privacy and Informed Consent
Individuals often have an expectation of privacy in public spaces, but is that expectation valid? The simple answer is no, because, unless we actively hide our identity, privacy in a public space is impossible. When in public we all spend time observing each other for various reasons. We may be looking out for threats to our safety, or for friends, or a potential mate perhaps. We are social creatures after all. Any expectation of privacy is akin to having an ‘expectation of silence’ next to a construction site. It may be a preference, but it’s not a right.
Because the State, the Government, and their agencies are just groups of people, from an ethical standpoint, any rule we have for individuals must also apply to them equally. These days, private and public CCTV cameras are commonplace, as are mobile phone cameras. If we accept that one person, or group of people, has the right to film or photograph in public, we must also accept that all people have that same right. The alternative is that no one has that right and all such footage and images would become illegal. Good luck enforcing that law. As for gaining consent ahead of time. Imagine the local council having to ask if it’s OK to film you with their CCTV cameras as you walk around the town centre. If you decline, are they going to turn their cameras off for the duration of your visit? I suspect not.
The Photographing of Children
So now the big radioactive question that photographers fear to ask. Is it OK to photograph kids in public?
Being no stranger to controversy, I’m going to tell you, because I believe that this is an area of photography that needs to be reclaimed. Yes it’s OK because photographing a child in public is ethically identical to photographing an adult. No doubt some people will call me names for even suggesting the idea, but let’s face it. Kids make great photographic subjects. They have an innate curiosity about the world around them and watching them explore and discover new things can be great fun. Their excitement and wonder can be contagious, reminding us of the beauty and complexity of the world. Observing and photographing kids as they develop new skills and abilities can be deeply rewarding. Witnessing their progress and the pride they take in their achievements is heartwarming. Kids often express their emotions openly and without reservation. Their laughter and joy during play are pure and unfiltered, providing a refreshing contrast to the often serious and stressful world of adults and watching them tackle and overcome challenges can be incredibly uplifting. Childhood should be celebrated.
Think about all the amazing shots you’ve seen from the past that have kids as the main subjects. Helen Levitt, Tish Murtha, and Henri Cartier-Bresson, all photographed them regularly without controversy. Now imagine if those images didn’t exist. Now think about all the great photos that don’t exist because, in the modern era, photographers have been afraid to point their cameras towards children. Such a shame.
If anything I believe that not photographing kids in public helps protect abusive adults. Be honest. How many times have you witnessed an adult yelling at, hitting or verbally abusing a kid in public and how many times did you look away rather than intervene? I’m ashamed to admit that I have several times. Nowadays I’ll intervene if I think doing so won’t make things worse for the kid.
Obviously this can be risky and I’ve had some negative experiences, but kids are some of the most vulnerable in our society and they deserve our protection. If abusers knew that they were likely to be filmed or photographed when acting in such a way, and that society as a whole condemned those behaviours, they would likely change, at least while in public. Kid photos serve as a record of their childhood experiences. Were they under or over-fed? Do they appear cared for? Are they happy or sad? This documentary evidence could and should be inconvenient to bad parents, so we need to stop looking the other way.
Exploitation of People, Especially the Vulnerable
This is one of the most challenging areas of criticism as there are a lot of grey areas. First, it helps if we understand the difference between Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB) and Aesthetically Preferable Behaviour (APB).
Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)
UPB refers to ethical rules that are considered objective, rational, and universally applicable because they are necessary for any rational human who wants to live among other humans without constant violence. If you want to have a debate about right and wrong, you already have to accept a handful of behaviours as preferable (better) for everyone, everywhere, always. If you reject them, you make debate, reason, or even continued existence impossible.
- Objective: UPB is based on actions that can be objectively verified and demonstrated as either consistent or inconsistent with the goals of life and reason (like truth is universally preferable to falsehood for rational discourse).
- Scope: UPB is primarily concerned with avoiding evil – actions that initiate force or fraud against others, such as murder, assault, theft, and rape. These actions are universally undesirable because they contradict the necessary preconditions for life and human interaction and can be ethically met with violence in return.
- Categories: The moral categories here are essentially ‘Evil’ and ‘Morally Neutral/Not Evil.’ The avoidance of initiating force is the core of UPB (AKA The NAP).
Aesthetically Preferable Behaviour (APB)
APB refers to behaviours that are subjective and based on individual preference, cultural norms, or personal taste. While they may be considered ‘good’ or ‘virtuous’ in a traditional sense, they are not necessary preconditions for life or rational action.
- Subjective: APB involves actions that are subjectively ‘good’ or ‘positive’ to an individual or a group, but are not universally mandated for all humans. What one person finds admirable, another might not.
- Scope: This category includes actions often traditionally called ‘virtues,’ such as courage, honesty, integrity, industry, cleanliness, punctuality, kindness, and other social niceties. These are subjectively good qualities, but their preference or absence doesn’t necessarily qualify as a universal moral evil. For example, while courage is generally admired, a lack of courage (cowardice) is not the same as initiating force (rape or murder). Unlike with UPB, violations of APB cannot be ethically met with violence in return.
- Categories: This is where the subjective category of ‘Good’ and ‘Subjectively Neutral/Not Good’ exists. This is left up to individual determination and cultural context.
In essence, ethics can only be objectively defined by what is Universally Preferable (avoiding initiating force and fraud). Everything else falls into the realm of Aesthetic Preference, which, while important for a flourishing life, is not a matter of objective, universal morality.
Therefore, from an ethical perspective, photographing vulnerable people is morally neutral. But, is it exploitative I hear you say?
‘Exploitation’ is a subjective term that describes an action as unkind, disrespectful, distasteful, or taking advantage of a position of weakness for one’s own gain (financial or artistic). While these actions are widely disapproved of and considered negative social behaviours, they are not universal moral evils because they do not involve the use of force or fraud.
At the end of the day we will never get everyone to agree on this. Over the years I’ve taken many images in the spur of the moment that I perhaps wouldn’t have taken, had I more time to evaluate the situation. I’ve also not taken many images because it felt inappropriate at the time. It can be a fine line to tread and we are all capable of making poor choices, especially if we are photographing an unfolding situation.
Nick Ut’s ‘Napalm Girl’ photograph of nine-year-old Kim Phúc running naked and screaming after a South Vietnamese napalm strike could easily have been dismissed as exploitative. In fact, AP editors almost didn’t publish it because of their nudity policy. The image detonated across the world and is widely credited with finally breaking American support for the Vietnam War. But Nick didn’t just click the shutter and walk away. He poured the last of his canteen water over Kim’s burning skin, bundled her and the other injured kids into the AP van, and raced them to hospital. When the staff tried to turn them away because they were considered too badly burned to survive, Nick showed his press badge and basically said, ‘Treat them or I’ll make sure the whole world knows you let children die in the car park.’ They were admitted on the spot. “Legend” isn’t a big enough word for that man. Thank you, Nick.
Aggressiveness and the Invasion of People’s Personal Space
So, what about the street photographers who are more aggressive in their approach to shooting? Ones who lunge towards their subjects and flash in their face? Are they violating the Non-Aggression Principle by initiating force against their subjects? I would argue yes. If the subject suspects that the person moving towards them could be about to do them harm, they would be well within their rights to protect themselves. That said, the elderly and frail may not have the capacity to defend themselves, and such an interaction could be detrimental to their wellbeing. They would likely get a fight or flight response which would cause their heart rate and blood pressure to increase which, could result in them having a stroke or a heart attack.
Additionally, the use of a flash gun could potentially induce an epileptic fit or a migraine in susceptible people, the effects of which can be long-lasting, debilitating and require hospital treatment.
So there you have it. In a nutshell there’s no reason for you to ever feel like you are doing something wrong when shooting street, so long as you adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle. If anyone accuses you of acting unethically you can simply give them a copy of this article and once they are preoccupied reading it, you can leg it. By the time they’ve finished you’ll be miles away and they’ll have probably lost the will to live.
“But Bob!” I hear you say. “Doesn’t that mean that, if we apply UPB to taxation, it means the people enforcing it are breaking the NAP by initiating force, and are therefore immoral?” Ahem! (Clears throat) That has nothing to do with photography, so I think we’ll wrap things up for today. If you made it this far, well done. I’m impressed.
In conclusion, understanding Ethics is quite simple. Just ask yourself, ‘Am I initiating force, or supporting the initiation of force against someone?’ If not, you’re golden and you can crack on with a clear conscience.
Happy snapping.
