The Free Dictionary (2011) defines ethics as “the moral fitness of adecision [or] course of action” (para 2.) But what is moral fitness? Understanding the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, is a quest that begins in toddlerhood and continues through old age. It is the topic of many conversations, business decisions, and educational studies. Although the importance of ethics is universally accepted, there seems to be no one definition, practice, or theory that encapsulates it. Because of the difficulty in pinpointing ethical behavior, its use in persuasion efforts is also deeply debated. In an effort to gain further understanding of ethics and its significance in persuasion, I have examined two ethical theories, the Kantian theory and the Utilitarianism theory, as well as aspects of the TARE test (truth, accuracy, respect, and equity) and determined that at the heart and soul of each of them is the biblical command to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
In the eighteenth century, philosopher Immanual Kant developed of a system of ethics that remains useful in ethical studies today. Kant believed that an individual was personally responsible for his actions and that the decision to act rightly should come from within and not from without (Messina, 2007, para. 23). Further, he alleged that it was the duty of man to actively determine a “moral norm” and obey it (Ethical Theories, para. 11). One very interesting aspect of Kant’s theory is that he theorized that in order for an action to be labeled ethical, it had to deliberately decided upon out of a sense of duty and not happen by accident or mere inclination. In other words, both animals and humans accidentally do things that might be considered good, but it takes a decision of the will, of reason, for the “good thing” to be labeled ethical (Kerstein, 2002, p. 114). In persuasion efforts, this defining criterion would require that an advertisement, sales pitch, sermon, college lesson, and so forth, would have to be written and presented with a conscious, deliberate attempt to be truthful and transparent in all of its aspects. Utilizing the Kantian theory in this way would match the definition of persuasive ethics suggested by Alex Messina is his document Public Relations, the Public Interest and Persuasion: An Ethical Approach (2007). In the document, Messina defines ethical persuasion as, “An attempt through communication to influence knowledge, attitude or behavior of an audience through presentation of a view that addresses and allows the audience to make voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgments” (para. 21). Deliberately choosing to present a view in such a way that the audience is given the information necessary to voluntarily and intellectually make a rational decision fits with both Kant’s and Messina’s theories.
A second ethical theory being examined in this paper is the Utilitarianism theory. This theory, introduced by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, has its foundation in Consequentialism (Messina, 2007, para. 56). Consequentialism uses the outcome of a situation as a means of determining the morality of the actions taken to reach it (Messina, 2007, para. 56). Going further, the Utilitarianism theory looks for the consequences that benefit the greatest number of people and determines that the “happiness quotient...the greatest good for the greatest number” is what makes a decision ethical (Messina, 2007, para. 57). Although this theory has merit and, at times, must be used to make difficult decisions, it also has a high probability of misuse. Deciding what the “greatest good” is must be determined by someone or some organization. In selling an idea that one feels is in the best interest of others, vital information may be left out in order to be persuasive in a “the ends justifies the means” manner. This violates the principle of informed consent being necessary in order for persuasion efforts to be ethical.
The final issue under consideration is the TARES test. Standing for truth, accuracy, respect, equity, and Social Responsibility, the TARES test is used as a means to determine whether an attempt at persuasion can be deemed ethical (Fawkes, 2007, para. 28). Being truthful (T) and accurate (A) are relatively easy to determine, but what does it mean to use respect (R) and equity (E) in persuasion efforts? According to Alex Messina (2007), who devotes little time to the S in TARES, the R in TARES means “Practicing respect for what others need to know to make a voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgment” while the E stands for “Achieving equity of access to information, or opportunity to respond” (para. 60). The use of TARES, or more specifically the failure to practice the principles described in TARES, has caused a huge outpouring of public anger, commentary, and a change in congress in recent months. Finding the real cost of the Affordable Healthcare for America Act of 2010 after its passing has left many Americans feeling like they were not given truthful and accurate information. Many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents feel like they were disrespected by not being supplied what was needed for them to make a “voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgment” about it, nor was there equity involved in their efforts to respond to their government officials prior to the hotly-debated healthcare bill becoming the law of the land. This left a sour taste in the stomachs of voters whose antacid of choice was shown by the shifting of power from Democrats to Republicans in the House of Representatives during the recent elections this past November.
The study of ethics has been significant for centuries, but studying and understanding alone is insufficient. Persian Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkopf is reported to have said, “The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it” (Goodreads, 2011, para. 1). The choice between ethical and unethical behavior is often a matter of just a few inches, the distance from your head to your heart. Perhaps the answer can be found in a document that some see as divine while others see as a great piece of literature: the Bible. Matthew 7:12 lists what is commonly referred to as the golden rule: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” If each and every communicator would offer the same level of truth, accuracy, respect, and equity that they would like to receive, ethical persuasion would soon become a lesson in history and not a goal for the future.
In the eighteenth century, philosopher Immanual Kant developed of a system of ethics that remains useful in ethical studies today. Kant believed that an individual was personally responsible for his actions and that the decision to act rightly should come from within and not from without (Messina, 2007, para. 23). Further, he alleged that it was the duty of man to actively determine a “moral norm” and obey it (Ethical Theories, para. 11). One very interesting aspect of Kant’s theory is that he theorized that in order for an action to be labeled ethical, it had to deliberately decided upon out of a sense of duty and not happen by accident or mere inclination. In other words, both animals and humans accidentally do things that might be considered good, but it takes a decision of the will, of reason, for the “good thing” to be labeled ethical (Kerstein, 2002, p. 114). In persuasion efforts, this defining criterion would require that an advertisement, sales pitch, sermon, college lesson, and so forth, would have to be written and presented with a conscious, deliberate attempt to be truthful and transparent in all of its aspects. Utilizing the Kantian theory in this way would match the definition of persuasive ethics suggested by Alex Messina is his document Public Relations, the Public Interest and Persuasion: An Ethical Approach (2007). In the document, Messina defines ethical persuasion as, “An attempt through communication to influence knowledge, attitude or behavior of an audience through presentation of a view that addresses and allows the audience to make voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgments” (para. 21). Deliberately choosing to present a view in such a way that the audience is given the information necessary to voluntarily and intellectually make a rational decision fits with both Kant’s and Messina’s theories.
A second ethical theory being examined in this paper is the Utilitarianism theory. This theory, introduced by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, has its foundation in Consequentialism (Messina, 2007, para. 56). Consequentialism uses the outcome of a situation as a means of determining the morality of the actions taken to reach it (Messina, 2007, para. 56). Going further, the Utilitarianism theory looks for the consequences that benefit the greatest number of people and determines that the “happiness quotient...the greatest good for the greatest number” is what makes a decision ethical (Messina, 2007, para. 57). Although this theory has merit and, at times, must be used to make difficult decisions, it also has a high probability of misuse. Deciding what the “greatest good” is must be determined by someone or some organization. In selling an idea that one feels is in the best interest of others, vital information may be left out in order to be persuasive in a “the ends justifies the means” manner. This violates the principle of informed consent being necessary in order for persuasion efforts to be ethical.
The final issue under consideration is the TARES test. Standing for truth, accuracy, respect, equity, and Social Responsibility, the TARES test is used as a means to determine whether an attempt at persuasion can be deemed ethical (Fawkes, 2007, para. 28). Being truthful (T) and accurate (A) are relatively easy to determine, but what does it mean to use respect (R) and equity (E) in persuasion efforts? According to Alex Messina (2007), who devotes little time to the S in TARES, the R in TARES means “Practicing respect for what others need to know to make a voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgment” while the E stands for “Achieving equity of access to information, or opportunity to respond” (para. 60). The use of TARES, or more specifically the failure to practice the principles described in TARES, has caused a huge outpouring of public anger, commentary, and a change in congress in recent months. Finding the real cost of the Affordable Healthcare for America Act of 2010 after its passing has left many Americans feeling like they were not given truthful and accurate information. Many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents feel like they were disrespected by not being supplied what was needed for them to make a “voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgment” about it, nor was there equity involved in their efforts to respond to their government officials prior to the hotly-debated healthcare bill becoming the law of the land. This left a sour taste in the stomachs of voters whose antacid of choice was shown by the shifting of power from Democrats to Republicans in the House of Representatives during the recent elections this past November.
The study of ethics has been significant for centuries, but studying and understanding alone is insufficient. Persian Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkopf is reported to have said, “The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it” (Goodreads, 2011, para. 1). The choice between ethical and unethical behavior is often a matter of just a few inches, the distance from your head to your heart. Perhaps the answer can be found in a document that some see as divine while others see as a great piece of literature: the Bible. Matthew 7:12 lists what is commonly referred to as the golden rule: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” If each and every communicator would offer the same level of truth, accuracy, respect, and equity that they would like to receive, ethical persuasion would soon become a lesson in history and not a goal for the future.
References
Ethical Theories. Retrieved from aerostudents.com/files/ethics/ethicaltheories.pdf .
Fawkes, J. (2007). Public relations models and persuasion ethics: a new approach. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1384728701&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId =74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
The Free Dictionary. (2011). Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethics.
Goodreads, Inc. (2011). Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?page= 10&q=ethics.
Kerstein, S. (2002). Kant’s search for the supreme principal of morality. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10014586&p00=kant.
Messina, A. (2007). Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: an ethical approach. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1210421591&sid=1&Fmt= 3&clientId= 74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
No comments:
Post a Comment