Ariana Grande and her failed relationships | the lara edit

 The Ethics of Celebrity Relationships

In contemporary celebrity culture, relationships are rarely private affairs. They are sites of scrutiny, moral judgement, and, at times, quasi-legal adjudication in the court of public opinion. Ariana Grande’s romantic history - frequently framed as a series of “failed relationships” - offers a useful lens through which to examine the intersection of law, influence, and public image. More broadly, it raises pressing ethical questions: why are female celebrities judged differently? Where should the boundary lie between public morality and private autonomy? And what role does the media play in shaping, or distorting, these narratives?

This article situates celebrity relationships within a framework that blends legal consciousness with moral philosophy, particularly virtue ethics, to interrogate how power operates both within and beyond formal justice systems.

The Gendered Lens of Public Judgement

Female celebrities, more than their male counterparts, are subjected to a persistent moralisation of their private lives. Grande’s relationships have often been narrated through a language of instability, excess, or emotional volatility - terms that carry implicit ethical judgement. By contrast, male celebrities engaging in similar patterns are frequently characterised as charismatic, complex, or merely “unlucky in the field of love.”

This asymmetry reflects what might be termed a cultural jurisprudence of gender: an informal but powerful system in which societal expectations act as unwritten laws. These norms are enforced by media ecosystems and audience participation, making gender an emergent feature of social situations; therefore boundaries are flexibly shaped by societies.

The philosopher Rosalind Hursthouse, in her account of virtue ethics, emphasises the importance of character over isolated acts¹. Yet, in celebrity discourse, women are rarely granted this holistic view. Instead, individual relationships are extracted, simplified, and used as evidence of moral deficiency. Grande’s relational history becomes not a series of human experiences, but a prosecutorial record.

Public Morality vs Private Autonomy

The tension between public morality and private autonomy is central to the ethics of celebrity relationships. While celebrities occupy a public role, their intimate lives remain, in principle, within the domain of personal liberty.

Legally, autonomy is protected through rights to privacy - enshrined in instruments such as Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights². However, the practical application of these rights is uneven. Courts may recognise a reasonable expectation of privacy, yet media narratives often operate in a parallel sphere where legality does not constrain visibility.

Grande’s relationships illustrate this divide. Though no legal wrongdoing is typically at issue, public discourse frequently adopts a moralising tone, as if her choices were subject to communal governance. This phenomenon raises an important question: does fame dilute one’s claim to moral independence?

From a liberal perspective, autonomy should prevail unless harm to others is demonstrable. Yet, in celebrity culture, “harm” is often redefined to include emotional reactions of the audience - disappointment, disapproval, or perceived betrayal. Such a standard would be untenable in law, but it thrives in mediated spaces.

Virtue Ethics and the Problem of Narrative Simplification

Virtue ethics offers a useful framework for analysing these dynamics. Rather than judging actions in isolation, it asks whether they contribute to a flourishing life (eudaimonia) and reflect virtues such as honesty, compassion, and integrity.

However, the media’s treatment of celebrity relationships tends toward reductive storytelling. Complex interpersonal dynamics are compressed into digestible narratives: “rebound,” “homewrecker,” “serial dater.” These labels function less as ethical evaluations and more as narrative devices.

In Grande’s case, her relationships are often interpreted through pre-existing archetypes of femininity - romantic excess, emotional dependence, or moral inconsistency. Such interpretations obscure the possibility of virtuous intent or personal growth.

As Bernard Williams argues, moral judgement must remain sensitive to context³. The absence of context in celebrity reporting leads to what might be called ethical distortion: a misalignment between the reality of lived experience and its public representation.

The Ethics of Media Intrusion

If public judgement operates as an informal legal system, the media serves as both prosecutor and judge. The ethics of this role are deeply contested.

On one hand, the press claims a mandate to inform the public, particularly where public figures are concerned. On the other, the pursuit of engagement often incentivises intrusion. Paparazzi culture, speculative reporting, and the amplification of unverified narratives blur the line between journalism and exploitation.

The Leveson Inquiry in the UK highlighted the dangers of such practices, noting the press’s capacity to cause significant harm in the absence of adequate accountability⁴. While the inquiry focused on more extreme cases, its findings are relevant to the everyday coverage of celebrity relationships.

Grande’s experiences - like those of many public figures - demonstrate how media intrusion can transform private relationships into public commodities. The ethical question is not merely whether such coverage is legal, but whether it is justifiable.

From a virtue ethics perspective, one might ask: does this form of reporting cultivate virtues such as truthfulness and respect, or does it encourage vices like sensationalism and voyeurism?

Power Beyond the Justice System

 Ultimately, the discourse surrounding Ariana Grande’s relationships reveals how power operates outside formal legal structures. Reputation, narrative control, and public perception function as mechanisms of influence that can shape outcomes as profoundly as any court ruling.

Celebrities, despite their visibility, are not always the most powerful actors in this system. Media institutions, digital platforms, and audiences collectively participate in the construction of meaning. This distributed power complicates questions of accountability.

If no single actor is responsible, can ethical responsibility be meaningfully assigned? Or does the system itself require reform - through stronger media regulation, cultural shifts, or greater public awareness?

References;

1. Hursthouse, R., On Virtue Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
2. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life).
3. Williams, B., Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (London: Fontana Press, 1985).
4. Leveson, B., An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press (London: The Stationery Office, 2012).