CHAPTER 8

Beyond equivalence:
ethics and morality

Instructor:
Basmah Alyahia
 Beyond Equivalence: Ethics and Morality by Mona Baker attempts to
help us think critically about some of the ethical choices and dilemmas
that as translators and interpreters we are going to face and for which
codes of ethics are rarely prepared. How do we decide what is ethical?
Sometimes different approaches can lead to the same decision, based on
different arguments.
ETHICS AND MORALITY
• Ethics and morality are generally understood to concern our ability to
make decisions on the basis of what we believe to be morally right or
wrong in a specific context.
• Ethics is thus understood as a lifelong process of learning and
improvement, of nurturing the right virtues in ourselves and those in
our care.
• The decision we take on any given occasion is generally judged as
ethical or unethical to the extent that it affects others, for example in
terms of their survival, freedom, well-being, comfort, happiness or
success. Unethical behaviour thus causes harm to others.
• However, although these two words seem interchangeable, there is a
kind of difference between them. Focusing on ethics in the context of
translation, Koskinen (2000:11) makes a distinction:
• morality as a characteristic not of communities but of
individuals, and
• ethics as ‘collectivised’ morality, as a collective effort of a
community to formulate a set of rules or recommendations of
accepted moral behaviour.
How do we decide what is ethical?
We might begin to address this question by drawing a broad distinction
between teleological and deontological approaches to the issue of ethical
decision-making.
• Deontological models define what is ethical by reference to what is right in
and of itself, irrespective of consequences, and are rule-based.
A deontological approach would justify an action on the basis of principles
such as duty, loyalty or respect for human dignity; hence: ‘I refrain from
intervening because it is my duty as a translator to remain impartial’, or ‘I
intervene where necessary because it is the duty of a responsible interpreter
to empower the deaf participant’.
• Teleological approaches, on the other hand, define what is ethical by
reference to what produces the best results.
A teleological approach would justify an action on the basis of the envisioned
end results; hence: ‘Making a conscious effort [in community interpreting] to
remain impartial can help avoid emotional involvement and possible burn-out’
or ‘I translate as idiomatically as possible because fluent translations receive
good reviews’.
In the following discussion of specific approaches to ethics, you will note
that different approaches can sometimes lead to the same decision, based
on quite different arguments.
As you reflect on each approach, it is important to bear in mind that the
issue of why we opt for one decision rather than another is just as
important as what decision we opt for. This is because the arguments we
use to justify our actions to ourselves and others contribute to shaping the
moral outlook of our communities.
Relativism
The attempt to separate morality from ethics and to restrict it to the individual might
suggest that what is moral is a matter of opinion, like an aesthetic judgement of
beauty or elegance. This type of relativism can take various forms. Some relativists
suggest that what is moral varies from one society to another and at different points in
history, and that we must therefore refrain from judging others on the basis of our
own, current values.
Relativism also alerts us to the fact that what is deemed controversial, and hence
requires more sensitivity from a translator or interpreter to communicate, varies from
one social environment to another.
Example:
• The right to wear the hijab is not a controversial issue in Saudi Arabia. A text about
banning the hijab in, say, Belgium or France will therefore be more challenging to a
mainstream Saudi audience than to the average Korean or Chinese reader. The extent
to which one can challenge the values and expectations of readers and still maintain
their involvement and treat them with dignity is an issue that occupies the minds of
many translators and influences their choice of wording as well as what to include
and what to omit, often with the involvement of their commissioner or other parties
in the interaction.
• Universalists believe that such basic moral principles do exist and that they
apply universally, but the way we interpret them can vary from one context
to another.
• Consequentialist theories, the best known among which is utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism comes in two versions: act-utilitarianism and rule-
utilitarianism.
• Act-utilitarianists argue that an ethical decision is one that results in the
most favourable consequences for the largest number of people in a given
context.
• rule-utilitarianism, which considers that ‘the right action is that action which
is performed in accordance with a rule, or set of rules, the following of
which maximizes utility’
• Act-utilitarianism and rule- utilitarianism can thus yield quite different
decisions based on utilitarian principles.
• Whatever theory of ethics informs our thinking, when principles clash
or our choices are severely restricted there will be no easy answer, no
ready-made solution that can be extracted from any code.
PROFESSIONALISM, CODES OF ETHICS AND THE LAW
Most professions have codes of ethics that regulate the behaviour of
their members and demonstrate to those who depend on their services
that they have mechanisms for ensuring accountability.
CODE OF ETHICS (GENERAL PRINCIPLES )
1. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Interpreters and translators take
responsibility for their work and conduct; they are committed to
providing quality service in a respectful and culturally sensitive manner,
dealing honestly and fairly with other parties and colleagues, and dealing
honestly in all business practices.
2. CONFIDENTIALITY Interpreters and translators maintain confidentiality
and do not disclose information acquired in the course of their work.
3. COMPETENCE Interpreters and translators only undertake work they
are competent to perform in the languages for which they are
professionally qualified through training and credentials.
4. IMPARTIALITY Interpreters remain unbiased throughout the
communication exchanged between the participants in any interpreted
encounter. Translators do not show bias towards either the author of the
source text or the intended readers of their translation.
5. ACCURACY Interpreters and translators use their best professional
judgement in remaining faithful at all times to the meaning of texts and
messages.
• Nevertheless, for many scholars and practitioners, professional codes of
translation and interpreting are and must remain the reference point for
ethical behaviour in the field. To resolve a range of ethical dilemmas for
which the code offers no satisfying answers, some have argued that ‘the
code applies to the interpreted encounter, and not to any interactions
before or after the professional encounter’
• the principle of confidentiality, which is central to all professional codes of
interpreting and translation, does not necessarily have to apply when a
patient tells an interpreter in the waiting room of a clinic that he or she
intends to commit suicide but does not wish this to be revealed to the
doctor. In deciding how to act ethically in this instance, the interpreter has
to use his or her own judgement or appeal to some other code, perhaps
the medical code, to resolve this dilemma. But this separation of pre/post-
encounter and the encounter itself is arguably artificial and difficult to
maintain in practice.
• impartiality does not mean lack of feelings on the part of the interpreter,
but argues that interpreters must not allow their personal opinions or
feelings to interfere with their work; if necessary, they can always declare
a conflict of interest and decline the job.

THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF LINGUISTIC CHOICES

Accuracy, as already pointed out, is one of the principles included in
most codes of ethics, and like impartiality and confidentiality can be
difficult to adhere to for ethical reasons. But accuracy focuses specifically
on the relationship between the source and target text, or source and
target utterance in the case of interpreting.
Example: P.287
Example: P.287
The car is explicitly associated with the ‘grandeur’ of that imperial past
and referred to as ‘she’, ‘loveliest baby’ and ‘bride’. Such gendered
references and the idea of driving this obedient ‘bride’ who never
complains through the lands of the former maharajas and viceroys are
likely to trouble translators who are alert to the gender issue and to
the violence of colonialism. For those who believe that such language
and imagery can have negative ethical implications for society as a
whole, and that it is therefore unethical to perpetuate this type of
discourse through translation, the answer is still not easy.
This example brings us to the broader issue of our ethical responsibility
as producers of language and discourse, irrespective of – or in addition
to – the question of whether the wording we use in a translation is
semantically ‘accurate’ in relation to the source text.