While ethical discussions are fraught with philosophical difficulty surrounding appropriate definitions of ethics (utilitarianism/rights/morals/relativism/ Kantian imperatives, etc) we nonetheless have some sort of understanding of what the word means. In considering the role of ethics in photography, it seems (to me at least) that it can be reduced to two related dimensions. These are: 1. The responsibilities of the photographer operating in a given social and historical context. This takes different forms. For example, the photojournalists dilemma when confronted with an ethically challenging (to them) subject : shoot or intervene? Alternatively, there is the role photographers play in deliberately challenging particular ethical positions or social mores by photographing controversial subject matter as a challenge to their wider society (Mapplethorpe, Jacob Riis, etc). 2. The role of the social and historical context in legitimising or discounting particular imagery. There are many examples where the legitimacy of particular types of images changes as a consequence of prevailing ethical preferences. Edward Westons image of his son Neil naked. Joel Meyerwitzs nude of a young girl in Cape Light. August Sanders project to catalogue social types might be deemed inappropriate now. Naturally, these are two sides of the same coin. Photography is conditioned by, and has a role in questioning, prevailing ethical norms. Are there other ethical dimensions to photography?