Ethical or not: Will Smith's Slap at Oscar 2022

Introduction

The impact of the Oscars on American pop culture cannot be understated. The show encompasses the microcosm of American culture, American TV, American movies – and American society at large. The status of the United States as the largest filmed entertainment market worldwide has significantly extended the visibility of the Oscars, which is viewed by billions of people across the globe – of all ages, faiths, and nationalities. Being conducted annually – like a secular ritual in American culture – and as an obligatory ritual for moviegoers and most Americans, the Oscar ceremonies are highly organized with a strict set of Academy rules and regulations. Being a public event captured live via television, the Oscar Award ceremony reiterates mainstream American culture's core values– equality, competition, democracy, occupational achievement, and upward mobility. At no point in recent history has professional ethics and American values been put on the spot, as was the case with the 2022 Oscar Award ceremonies. The point of reference is when actor Will Smith – who went on to win an award for Best Actor – on provocation by Chris Rock's offensive joke about his wife, climbed onto the stage of a live show – being watched by billions across the world – and slapped the host in the middle of his presentation. The slapping of Will Smith by Chris Rock at the 2022 Oscar Award ceremony provides a hands-on ethics lesson.

Ethical Analysis of Will Smith’s slap

For the shocked observers tuned in life from across the globe, the attitude that individuals chose to take to Will Smith's slap at Chris Rock definitely mirrors the attitude of America – and in extension, pop culture – to masculinity, violence, and what it means to protect others. Superficially, this celebrity situation raises interesting questions about the acceptable limits of violence that can be deemed appropriate in protecting a loved one – in this case, slapping another human. To put this discussion into context, while hosting the 2022 Oscars, comedian Chris Rock joked that he couldn't wait to see Will Smith's wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, as a leading role in the movie GI Jane 2. This joke referenced a character with a shaved head which was characteristic of the original movie GI Jane. Jada Pinkett Smith had a shaved head at the Oscars, which was not done by choice but the effects of an autoimmune disease known as alopecia which is often characterized by hair loss. Whether or not Chris Rock knew about her medical condition can only be argued. However, Will Smith, on detesting the comedian's joke, walked onto the stage and slapped Chris Rock. Will Smith would later apologize to Chris Rock for his actions, citing that people often do "crazy things" in the name of love.

Analyzing this celebrity situation, I have found interesting philosophical and ethical developments. The most intriguing component of these developments can be summed up by a section of Smith's apology, reiterating that "violence in all of its form is poisonous and destructive." From this analogy, it would be easy to get caught up in Smith's physical manifestation of violence and, in the process, totally overlook Chris Rock's subtle form of violence in its verbal manifestation. In my opinion, this perspective creates another dimension of the ethical dialogue – the role of intent in ethical decision-making. From Chris Rock's perspective, acknowledging his profession as a comedian, his intention was probably to create a light moment out of the circumstance – something he managed to achieve if the crowd’s burst into laughter is anything to go by. At first, even Smith himself appeared to have appreciated the humor in the joke. On the other hand, Smith’s physical reaction was motivated by the spontaneous need to defend a loved one – as was captured in his words to Rock after the infamous slap, “keep my wife’s name out of your mouth.”

The fuzziness of morality and ethics in this celebrity situation underlines the fact that there are no universally accepted means for analyzing ethical situations. However, for this analysis, it would be appropriate to use the moral intensity construct and place greater emphasis on context and the judgment of Will Smith within this celebrity scenario. For this scenario, I would like to conduct an ethical analysis from the perspective of duty and consequence. Being a comedian and host, Chris Rock had a duty to entertain through comedy – and his intentions were not motivated by the need to cause harm. In this scenario, Rock managed to perform his duty at the Oscars. Rock's behavior and comedic utterances on stage are in tandem with the acts of most comedians.

On the other hand, Smith had a duty to protect his loved one– but not to the point of physical violence since Rock paused no significant physical threat to his wife. Will Smith's slap, if replicated in every similar situation globally, would result in a world of anarchy where no one would be safe – including his wife. So, in this context, Rock became Smith's victim. We cannot ethically subject individuals who make offensive jokes to physical violence – especially when these jokes lack any sinister motives. Smith's actions toward Rock cannot be allowed since they create a world full of violence. The feelings of possessiveness exposed by Smith's actions in the name of love illustrate that he was driven by pride and concern for his reputation and masculinity (as a protector and a guardian).

From an ethical perspective, Smith's actions were highly unethical since his violent actions against Rock were born of possessiveness and, if left unhindered, may lead to a poisonous and destructive world. I believe there was an alternative route for Will Smith, as observed by several previously offensive Oscar ceremonies and the millions of men worldwide who have swallowed their pride whenever a comedian made offensive jokes about their loved ones. Compassion and empathy, in the assessment of ethical decision-making, form the basis of objective morality. Smith’s actions reflected poorly on American culture toward violence and systematically demeaned the person of Chris Rock and every other guest, viewer, and member of the Academy. Smith's slap also took away from the achievement of Oscar Award nominees and the deserved celebration of the Academy winners. Citing an outright breach of Oscars Academy rules of conduct, the Board of Governors for the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences correctly banned Will Smith from the Oscars for a period of 10 years. Smith’s unacceptable and harmful behavior overshadowed the true essence of the Oscar ceremony – and as a professional member of the Academy, his actions were grossly unethical.

Conclusion

Based on this evaluation, the moral and ethical implications of Smith's action are at best ambiguous. When I first watched the physical assault on live television, I had conflicting feelings about the occurrence. Initially, I regarded Smith's acts as heroic; thereafter, I felt neutral toward both parties; and by the next morning, following the Oscars, I began to question my conception of the moral man and woman. Smith had legitimate and legal options, but he chose violence. If Smith's feelings were sincere and well-intentioned, he would have challenged Rock offstage by agent, telephone, or interview. Yet he chose to attack Rock during a live event that was viewed by billions of people, as if to teach children and everyone else that violence is a choice if you feel irritated or verbally assaulted. I then realized that instead of displaying empathy and compassion in his reaction, Smith picked a brutal and dehumanizing option. His acts demonstrated the deterioration and corruption of civility, traditions, and values. In addition, the fact that Smith was then defended adamantly and won the Oscar for Best Male Actor without reprimand by Academy organizers despite his violent conduct demonstrates how the contemporary world promotes a violent and furious culture.