Ethics in Human

Communication

Fifth Edition

Richard L. Johannesen

Northern Illinois University

WAVEIAND

PRESS, INC. Prospect Heights, illinois

,

For information about this book, contact: Waveland Press, Inc. P.O. Box 400 Prospect Heights, Illinois 60070 (847) 634-0081

www.waveland.com

1 Et

2 p Copyright 2002, 1996, 1990, 1983, 1975 by Richard L. Johannesen

ISBN 1-57766-211-3

All rights reserved. No part oj this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyjorm or by any means without permission in writingjrom the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

7654 3 21

1 Ethical Responsibility in Human Communication Values can be viewed as conceptions of The Good or The Desir

able that motivate human behavior and that fWIction as cliterla In our making of choices and Judgments. Concepts such as malerial success. individualism. efllciency. thrift. freedom. courage. hard work. competition. patriotism, compromise, and punctuality all are value standards that have varying degrees of potency in contemporary North American culture. But we probably would not view them primarily as ethical standards of right and wrong. Ethical judgments focus more precisely on degrees of rightness and wrongness, virtue and vice. and obligation in human behavior. In condemning someone for being inefficient. conformist, extravagant, lazy, or late, we probably would not also be cla.tming they are unethical. However. standards such as honesty. promise-keeping. truthfulness. fatrness, and humaneness usually are used in making ethical Judgments of lightness and wrongness in human behavior.

Ethical Issues may arise in human behavior whenever that behavior could have slgnillcant impact on other persons, when the behavior involves conscious choice of means and ends. and when the behavior can be Judged by standards of right and wrong. l If there Is little possible signitlcant, immediate. or long-term impact of our actions (physical or symbolic) on other humans, matters of ethics normally are viewed as mjnimally relevant. If we have Utile or no opportunity for consciOUS free chOice in our behavior, ifwe feel compelled to do or say somethlng because we are forced or coerced. matters of ethics usually are seen as minimally relevant to our actions.

1

~

3 Some philosOphers draw distlnctions between eWcs and mor

als as concepts. Ethics denotes the general and systematic study of what ought to be the grounds and princJples for right and wrong human behavior. Morals (or morality) denotes the practical. specific. generally agreed-upon, culturally transntltted standards of right and wrong. Other philosophers, however. use the terms ethics and morals more or less interchangeably_ as will be the case in this bOOk.

Inbereney of Potential Etblcal Issues Potential ethical issues are Inherent in any instance of commu

nIcation between humans to the degree that the communication can be judged on a right-wrong dimension , that it Jnvolves possible signHkant Jnfluence on other humans, and that the communicator ConSCiously chooses specific ends sought and communicative means to achieve those ends. Whellier a communicator seeks to present information, increase someone's level of understanding, facilitate independent decision in another person, persuade about important values, demonstrate the eXistence and relevance of a SOCietal problem, advocate a solution or program of action. or stimulate cOnllic t

[potenUal ethIcal Issues inhere in the communicator's symboliceffor~Such Is the case for most human commUnication whether it is betWeen two people, in small groups, in the rhetoric of a soctal movement in commUnication from government to citizen, or in an advertiSing, pUblic relations or political campaign.

Humans are the only animals "that can be meaningfuJJy

deSCribed as haVing values," believes Social psychologist Milton

Rokeach. More specifically, sodal CIitic Richard Means contends

that the "essence of man par excellence may be Homo ethlcus, man

the maker of ethical judgments. ,,2 But some persons ask, why worry

at all about ethics In human COmmunication? Indeed , to

4 Chapler One

their Idea In its pure form and that idea moclified Lo achieve maximum Impact with the audience.

The search is for an appropriate point between two undesirable extremes- the extreme of saying only what the audJence desires and will approve and the extreme of complete lack of concern for and understanding of the audience. The search is for an appropriate point between 100 much adaptation to the aUdJence and not enough. Both extremes are ethically irresponsible. This tension. this search for balance in audience adaptation. can be viewed as an example of Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean {termed by others as the Golden Mean}. For Aristotle. moral virtue usually represents a mean or intermediate point between two Vices- the vice of excess and the vice of defiCiency. For example, courage is a mean between foolhardJness and cowardice. Generosity Is a mean between wastefulness and stingIness. Aristotle denies that the mean Is a mathematically precise average or midpoint between extremes. Rather. the mean combines the right amount at the right time toward the right people In a right manner for the right motives. The mean Is also relative to the person's status. specific situation. and strengths and weaknesses of character. A person generally disposed toward one extreme In an appropriate instance ought to tend toward the other extreme to redress the imbalance.6

Develop your own ethical Judgment about the ethicality of the folloWing example. Consider presidential candJdate Walter Mondalc's habit in 1983 of teillng Widely varied Interest groups that each group's specifl.c interests are "at the very core of my being:' Commented Newsweek (October 3. 1983. p . 32): "In a single three-week period, Mondale used this same phrase to express his commitment to civil rIghts. his concern for quality education. and his fidelity to upholding 'the rights of unions.' Some Joke that the core of bJs beIng must be very large, dJVidcd into small wedges. or rentable on short notice."

The Importance of Etblcs Evidence abounds reflecting citizen concern for the decline of eth

ics In both public and private behavior. "What Ever Happened to EthicsT asked a cover story of Time (May 25. 1987). ''A Nation of Liars?" inquired U.S. News and World Report (February 1987). Time devoted seven pages to the topic of "Lies. Lies, Lies" (October 5. 1992). Political columnist Joseph Spear contends that "Washington. D.C.. Is a Virtual viper's nest of liars. The pols do it. the lawyers do it, the dJplomats do It. the bureaucrats do it. the spokespersons do it Lying is a way of life in the nation's capital" (DeKalb Daily Chronicle , November 10. 1998. p. 5 ).

Political commentators and prIvate citizens debated the issue of "character" as it applied to ethics in the public and private lives of President BUl Clinton and other political leaders. Magazine articles

Ethical Responsibilily in Human '-'V'~ "-'''--' -

norm in American culture (AtlantiC Monthly. February 1992. pp. 4070; Newsweek, February 6. 1995. pp. 21-25). In the L999 annual Gallup Ppll o[ public op1nlon on the honesty and ethics of persons in 45 fields of work. the five professions/occupaUons considered least etblcal and honest were, in decU:n:Ing order of ethics. lawyers. HMO managers. insurance salespersons, telemarketers. and car salespersons. Ranked nearly as low in the poll were CongTessmen and advertiSing pracUtioners. In the mid-range of rankings on ethicS and honesty were business executives and prlnVelectronlc journalistsp(poll released November 19. 1999; www.gallup.com/poll/{ndex.as ).

A poll of 3.123 excellent high school students listed in Who's Who

Among Amertca Hlgh School Students found that 80 percent of the

n students said they cheated to get to the top of their class and more than half of them said they do not think cheating is a big deal (Ch{cago Tr{bune. December 5 . 1999. Sec. 13. p. 5). A national survey of 3.600 college students at twenty-three colleges revealed that onem six college students had lied on a Tesume. job application, or during a job interview; that two out of (lve bad lied to a boss and a third had lled to a customer during the past year; and that one out of five admitted cheating on an exam (Washington Post NatLonat Weekly Edition, December 7- 13. 1992, p. 36). A national public opinion poll of citizens found that three of four believed lhe country's values and morals are in serious decline and nearly two-thirdS said they are dissatiSfied with the "honesty and standards of behavior of people in this country" (Washmgton Post NaHonal Weekly Edltton, September 21. 1998. p. 10).

"A society without ethics is a society doomed to extinction," argues philosopher S. Jack Odell. According Lo Odell. the "basic concepts and theories of ethics provide the framework necessary for working out one's own moral or etbical code." OdeU belJeves that "etblcal prinCiples are necessary preconditions for the existence of a social community. Without ethical principles it would be impossible for human beings to live in harmony and without fear. despair. hopelessness, anxiety, apprehension. and uncertainty.,,7

A societal or personal system of ethics is not a magic or automatic cure-all for individual or collective ills . What can ethical lheory and systematic reflection on etbJes contribute? One answer IS suggested by philosopher Carl Wellman:

An elhlcal system does not solve all one's practical problems. but one cannot choose and acl rationally wJthout some expUcit or implicit elhlcal system. An ethical theory does not tell a person what to do in any given situation, but neither is it completely silent; il tells one what to consider in maklng up one's mind what to do. The practical function of an ethical system IS prtmarily to cUrect our attention Lo the relevant considerations. the reasons8 that determine the rightness or wrongness of any act.

explored the decline of an appropriate "sense of shame" as an ethical I

7 6 Chapter One

freedom and Responsibility 1Wentieth-century culture in the United States emphasizes dual

concerns for maxl.mlzing latitude of freedom of communicatianand for promoting responsible exercise of such freedom. The current and future bOlU1ciarles of freedom of communication in the United States are explored in such works as: The System oj Freedom oj Express/on, Freedom oj Speech in the United States, and Speech and Law in a Free Society.9 Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz succinctly describe~..the interrelated and Intertwined nature of freedom and respoIl$lb1l1ty. ro

The crucial moral characteristic of the human condition is the dual experience of freedom of the will and personal responsIbility. Since freedom and responsib ility are two aspects of the same phenomenon, they Invite comparison with ilie proverbial knife that cuts both ways. One of its edges implies options: we call it freedom. The other Implies obligations : we call it responsibility. Pe0ple like freedom because it gives them mastery over things and people. They dislike responsibility because It constrains Ulem from satlstylng thetr wants. That is why one of the things that characterizcs history is the WlCeasing human effort to maximiZe freedom and minimize responSibility. But to no avail. for each real increase in human freedom . . . brtngs with it a proportlonate Increase 10 responsibility. Each exhilaration with the power to do good is soon eclipsed by the guilt for having used it to do evil.

African-American legal s~lar and social critic Stephen Carter

~I

describes the tension this waj..l 1 On the one hand, fTeedom estrained by clear moral nonns begets anarchy. On the other h d. moral norms that have the force of law often sttfle freedom . tension is ineVitable in a nation that wishes to be both moral an Ice. But nobody can (or should want to ) sustain the tension inde tely; sooner or later,

on every question on which we might disagree, the side of freedom or the side of restraint will have Its way.

The continuing tenSion between freedom and responsibility emerges both In intimate Interpersonal communication and in mass communication. "For thcre to beJreedom to conver se intimately with another person," assumes William RawUns. "each party must take responsibLlLty for communication behavior:' Several mass communication scholars believe:

r'fn an environment where freedom Is considered paramount. . . . words such as accountabtllty and responsibility are often not

i.o-understood or even heard. increasingly. however. they are the "walch words" for today's media. The regulation of media. especlal.ly broadcasting, has decreased lrl recent years. and so the need for ethical and moral responsibility in media has become lmportant,12

Ethical Responsibility in Human Conununlcatlc1m

"U NABOM's Manifesto Poses Ethical Dllemma for Pap~rs" read

the headline in the Washington Post (July 1. 1995. A3). The serial

mail bomb terrorist deSignated by the FBI as UNABOM! had k:illed

three people and wOlUlded 23 1n the period 1978- 1995. In the sum

mer of 1995 be promiSed to end his mail bomb attacks on persons

(but not necessarily on property) if the New York Times and the Washington Post published his 35,000 word manifesto that described his criticism of modern technological society. Arguments by the press and law enforcement officials presented pro and con viewpoints concerning the wisdom and ethics of publ1cation. On the one hand t publication possibly could save lives . On the other hand. publication would represent giving In to a person who had set hlmself above normal moral standards. And publication might set a strong precedent for terrorists to blackmail newspapers lnto publishing their views. thus Infringing on Firs t Amendment rights of freedom of the press.

After extensive consultation with the FBI and the attorney general, on November 19 , 1995. the Washington Post published the manifesto as an eight-page speciallnsert and split the publication costs with the New York Times . publication again prompted divided reactions from media experts and law enforcement officials. Some applauded it for public safety reasons. Others questioned it both for giving in to terrorist demands and for relying heavily on the views of governmental agencies as to whether (and thus what) to publish (Post. Nov. 20, 1995. AI. A12; Times. Nov. 20. 1995. AI6). Donald E. Graham, the publisher of the washington Post (Nov. 19 . 1995. Al. A7). said it was published "for public safety reasons. not journalistic reasons." Also he argued: "This 1s not a First Amendment issue. TWs cen!e.: on the role of a~er~ part of a~II?!!lunity." The publisher

s ..,.... of the New York Times (Nov. 19 . 1995. AI. B7). Arthur Sulzberger. Jr., ;:. concluded: ''I'm convinced we're making the right choice between two

bad options ." Clearly this case illustrates the complex tension in our society between freedom and responsibility in comrnuulcation.

After over two decades of advocating the imperative of freedom for journaHsts and of urgtng an individual existential journalistic ethic t."JOhn Merrotmodified some of his views. In bis book. The Dialectic In JournaliSm: Toward a Responslble Use of Press Freedom. MerrtU13 insists on "the essent1alJty of freedom. while counterpoising responsibility as a natural limiting factor.. . . The fundamental dialectical theme of this book is freedom and ethics in critical tension that results in a higher synthesls-th~ ethical use of freedon another poInt he explainS:

Freedom and responsibility are. In a real sense, contraries of great importance to Journalism; they aTe the tension agents that bTlng confl1ct lrlto the dialectic. Freedom clashes with ethics to gain more flexibility and Inclivldualtsm. Ethics conflicts with frce

8 9

Chapler One

dom to supplant personal licentiousness with soc1al concern. NeJther ever completely wins the batUe. and neither falls completely vanquished. Instead, a reconciliation. a hybridIZation. a med.1atJon--a dialecltcal synthesls-results.

In developing h.ls ethical stance. Merrill combines aspects of two ethJcal traditions: deontologlcal ellilcs lliat bases right and wrong on duty to obey uruversal and absolute principles; and teleologlcal ethics lliat assess ethicality of acts according to the consequences. such as utility and degree of greatest good for the greatest number in the long run for lliose affected. Thus Merrill labels his v1ew as Udeontelic ethics." Journalists would "begin With bastc principles or maxims to which lliey could reasonably pay allegiance and to which they feel a duty to follow." These fundamental principles are held as normal gUides for action. but Journalists must "not follow these basic ethical tenets blindly or unthinkingly." Deontelic ethics recognlzes "specific. and differing. human situaUons in which exceptions and modifications of the general prinCIples can be made by the concemed jOurnalist" in light of probable consequences and contextual factors . But such modifications are temporary- u for always

notbut for a Particular time." As communi tors. our ethical res. onslbilities may stem from a

pOLtion or role we have earned or been granted, from commltments (prOmises. led es, eements) we have made, from established ethical princl les, from relationsh.1 s we h formed. or om conse-

L qt!ences (effects, impacts) of our commurucation on others. Responslbillty includes llie elements of fulillling dUties and obligations, of being held accountable as evaluated by agreed-upon standards, and of being accountable to our own conscience. But an essential element of responsible communicaUon. for both sender and receiver, Is the exercise of thoughtful and caring Judgment. That is, tht: responSible COmmunicator reflectively analyzes claims. soundly assesses probable consequences, and conscientiously considers relevant values (both abstract prinCiples and personal relationships) . In a sense a responSible COmmunicator 1s response-able. She or he exercises the ability to respond (is responsive) to the needs and communication of others in sensitive, thoughtful. fitting ways. 14

Femmtst philosopher Margaret Urban Walker ProVides an apl summary. "We can be responsible for specific tasks or goals, roles With dlscreUonary powers. acts and failures to act, outcomes and upshots of actions (not always controllable or foreseen) , contributions to outcomes that are not ours alone. and attitudes. habIts, and traits. Speci11c distributions of responsiblUty roughly map out this complex terrain of who must account, how far and for what, to whom.'.15

"The sense of ourselves as responsible Is at least a necessary condition of self-respect, ~ believes ~~und PincolIs, a contemporary

'"'IV o

Ethical Responsibillty in Human CommunlcaUon

professor of philosophy. FUrthermore he argues. "If dOing things with words imposes or incurs responsibilities. then a world .In which those responsllJiUUes were not honored would be a world in which It

... would be increaSingly difficull and finally Impossible to do things with words. ResponsibHity for what wejLay. then, Is also responsibilIty [or the inrngrn.y of (he ranguage.""!.!1l'he concern for eMcally ~. fesponsible communlcation flllds apt expression in the words of.R~

Hammar~k1Pld.Jate Secre1aI:y General of the United Nations: 17 Respect for the word- to employ it with scrupulous care and an

incorruPt1ble heartfelt love of truth- Is essential If there Is to be any growth in a society or In the human race . ~T..o misuse tile word Is to show contempt for man. It undermines the bridges and poisons ihe wells. It causes Man to r egress down the long path of his evolution.

Tbe Intentional and tbe Sincere Whether communicators seem lntentlonaLLy and knowingly to

use particular content or techniques is a factor lbat most of us take into account in judging degree of commurucaUon ethicality. If a dubious communication behav10r seems to stem more from accident. from an unintentional slip of the tongue. or even from Ignorance. often we are less harsh Ln our ethical assessment. For most of us, it is the intentional use of ethically questionable tactics that merits our harshest condemnation. As an example. Nicholas Rescher believes that there is no moral or eth.lcalissue when persons unlntentlonally or aCCidentally use unsound ev1dence or illogical reasoning. But he sees the intentional use of faulty reasoning as qulte d1fferent.

~Undoubtedly. the person who sets out deliberately to deceive others by means of improper reasoning is morally culpable...... 18

In contrast, i t might be contended that in argumentative and persuasive situations, communicators have an ethical obligation to double-check the soundness of their ev1dence and reasoning before they present it to others; sloppy preparation is not an adequate excuse to lessen the harshness of our ethlcal Judgment. A stmilar v1ew might be advanced concerrung elected or appointed government officials. If they use obscure or Jargon-laden language that clouds the accurate and clear representation of ideas. even if that use is not intended to deceive or bide. they are ethically irresponsible. Such offiCials. accordLng to this v1ew. should be obligated to communicate clearly and accurately with Citizens in fulfillment of their governmental duties.

In Moralities of Everyday Life. the authors note that usually "there is a close relationship between responslbtlity and intent- we are responsible for what we intend to do, what we are trying to do ." Nevertheless lliey argue lbe pOSition that "people are responSible for

10 Chapter One

all that they cause so long as they can see that they cause it and can do otherwise. We may feel responsible only for what we intend; we are responsible for all that we dO.' 19

As a related quesUon we can ask. does sincerity of intent release a communicator from ethical responsibility concerning means and effects? Could we say that if Adolf H.1tler's fellow Germans judged him to be sincere, they should not assess the ethics of his persuasion? In such cases. evaluations are probably best carried out If we appraise sincerity and ethicality separately. For example. a communicator sincere in intent may be found to utilize an unethical strategy. Or communication techo1ques generally considered ethical might be used by an insincere person. Wayne Booth reminds us that "sincerity is more difficult to check and easier to fake than logicality or consistency. and its presence does not, after all, guarantee very much about the speaker's case:20 And Peter Drucker describes the different meanings of sincerity in Western and Eastern cultures. Westerners view sincerity as "words that are true to convictions and feelings" whereas people from Eastern cultures define sincerity as "actions that are approprtate to a specillc relationship and make it harmOniOUs and of optimum mutual benefit. ..21

Components of Morality and Intetrlty The research program of James Rest and his colleagues on

moral development suggests that moral action typically is the outcome of four complex and interrelated psychological processes. 22 They may occur in varying sequences and varying degrees of strength but all must be present in significant strength for the moral act to occur. Moral sensltlvlty involves interpreting the situation, recognizing it as one embodying ethical issues. using empathy and role -taking to understand how the act might affect all concerned, and imagining cause-effect sequences of events. MoraLjudgment involves deCiding. after reflection and In light of relevant ethical standards , which act would be most morally justifiable. Moral motivation involves a degree of commibnent to doing the moral act, preferrIng ethical standards when in conllict With other values (selfish gain, immediate self-satisfaction, etc.), and taking personal moral responsibility for consequences of the act. Moral character involves persistence, backbone, courage, toughness. energy, focus, and strength of conviction necessary for actually performing the behaviors necessary t.o accomplish the act. A person may possess the first three components in a situation, but If that person's character is weak rather than strong, the ethical act probably Will not occur. Of course lack of sufflcient strength for anyone of the [our components can result in moral failure in a situation.

Ethical ResponsibUlty in Human Communication 11

In some senses, Rest's components leading to a moral acl harmoniZe with the elements of "integrity" defined by Stephen Carter. For him. a person of integrity takes lime and effort to deUbcI'ate about the right thing to do, actually does the right thing despite personal hardship. and IS wUUng to explain whal was done and to jUstify it.23 Margaret Urban Walker elaborates her view of integrity as a "morally admirable quality.24 She sees "lntegrtty as a kind of reUabHtty: reliability in the accounts we are prepared to give, act by, and stand by. in moral terms. and dependable responsiveness to the ongOing fit among our accounts. the ways we have acted. and the consequences and costs our actions have in fact incurred." lntegrlty as reUability. she believes, includes engagtng in actions that. are reasonably conSistent and coherent ethically; providing sensible ethical

justifications for these actions; keeping short-term and long-term

promises; recognIzing that sometimes we may be expected to

account for consequences we did not control; and willingness to try

to restore reliabillly after an action of dubiOUS or falled ethicality.

Etblcs and Personal Character An emphasiS on duties. obligations. rules. prtnciples, and the res

olution of complex ethical dilemmas has dominated the contemporary phllosophy of ethics. This dominant emphasiS has been true whether as vartatlons on Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. on John Rawls's depersonaliZed vell of ignorance to determine justice, on statements of int:rtnsic ultimate goods, or on Jeremy Bentham's or John Stuart Mill's utllitartan views. The past several decades, however. have witnessed a growing interesl among ethicists in a largely ignored tradition that goes back at least as far as Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies of ethics. This largely bypassed tradition typically is called virtue ethIcs or character ethics. Most ethicists of virtue or character see that perspective as a crucial complement. to the current dominant ethical theories. Ethicists describe virtues variously as deep-footed disposItiOns. habitS. skills, or traits of character that Incline persons to perceive. feel. and act in ethically right and sensitive ways. Also they describe virtues as learned. acquired. cultivated. reinforced, capable of modification, capable of conflicting. and ideally coalesced into a harmonious cluster.

Ethical communication is nol simply a series of careful and reflective decisions. instance by instance. to communicate in ethically responsible ways. Deliberate application of ethical rules sometimes is not possible. Pressure may be so great or a deadline so near for a decision that there is not adequate time for carefuJ deliberation. We may be unsure what ethical criteria are relevant or how they apply. The situatlon may seem so unique that applicable criteria do not readily come to mind. In such times of crisis or uncertainty. our

12 Chapter One

decision concerning ethical communication stems less from deliberation than from our formed "character." furthermore. our ethical character Influences the terms with which we describe a situation and whether we bellcve the situation contains ethical implicaUons. 25

Consider the nature of moral character as described by ellilcists Richard DeGeorge and Karen Lebacqz. According to DeGeorge:

As human beings develop. lhey tend to adopt patterns of actions. and d1spositions to act in certain ways. These dispositions , when vlewed collectively, are sometimes called character. A person who habitually tends to act as he morally should has a good character. If he resists strong temptation, he has a strong character. If he habitually acts immor ally, he has a morally bad character. If despite good intentions he fr equently succumbs to temptation. he has a weak character. Because character 1s formed by conscious actions. in general people are morally responsible for theIr characters as well as for !heir tndJvtdual actions.26

Lebacqz believes: Indeed. when we act. we not only do something. we also shape our own character. Our chOices aboutwhat to do are also chOices about whom to be. A Single lie does not necessarily make us a liar: but a series of lles may. And so each choice about what to do is also a choice about whom to be~r. more accurately. whom to become. 27 Ideally, according to Cunnlngham's interpretation of Aristotle's

Doctrine of the Mean. a person of soundly formed moral character generally will. upon reflection. choose the righl thing to do because 1l is right in the clrcwnstances. not because it is right by avoiding excess or deficiency. The right thing to do turns out Lo be an intermediate or mean pOSition somewhere between excess and deficiency. Right as a virtue Is determined not in comparison to e'l(ccss or deficiency; rather excess and deficiency as vices are determined In comparison to the right thing to do. For Aristotle. a person of sound moral character generally lives a life of right action in the realm of the mean rather than slipping into excess or deflciency.28

In Judeo-ChrisUan or Western cultures, good . moral character usually is associated with habitual embodiment of such virtues as courage, temperance, wisdom. justice. fairness. generosity gentleness. patience. truthfulness. and trustworthiness. Other cultures may praise addItional or different virtues that tlley believe constitute good ethical character. Instilled in us as habitual dispositions to act . these virtues guide the ethics of our communication behavior when careful or dear deliberation is not possible.

In The Virtuous Journalist . Steven Klaidman and Tom Beauchamp contend that citizens "should expect good character in our national leaders. and the same expectations are Justified for anyone In whom we regularly place trust...29 The Wall Street Journal sur-

Ethlcal ResponsLbility in Human Communication 13

veyed dozens of top executives ofNorth American companles to see if they would hire Lt. Col. Oliver North (of the iran-Contra scandal) 1f he applied for a job. Many executives enthusiastically said they would hire him. but some would place restrictions on his responsibUlties. Among those who would refuse to hire him. one especially pinpointed the issue of character, saying "it is a real character flaw when someone Is wtlllng to lie, cbeat, and steal to accomplish the end of his superiors. That flaw will ultimately hurt the company. It's a character flaw that I would find unacceptable despite the strengths of his loyalty. The integrity flaw outweighs any other...30 Admittedly. the news media (or anyone) may at times be overzealous and fDcus on trivial or irrelevant character traits. But in general the emphasis on moral character in evaluating presidential candidates is central "to what the electorate seems to value most in its presldentsauthenticity and honesty.,,3i

To aid In assesstng the ethical character of any person in a pOSition of responsibility or any person who seeks a position of trust. we can modify guidelines suggested by Journalists . Will the recent or current ethically suspect communication behaVior probably conUnue? Does It seem to be habitual? Even if the particular incident seems minor in itself, does 1t "fit into a famillar pattern that illuminates more serious shortcotn1ngs?" If the person does something inconSistent With his or her publlc image. "is II a small miscue or a sIgn of hypocrlsy?,,32 Rhetorical critic Walter Flsher considers character to be an "organiZed set of actional tendencies" and observes: "If these tendencies contradict one another. change stgniflcantly. or alter in 'strange' ways. the result is a questioning of character. .. . Without this kind of predictability. there is nO trust, no community. no rational human order.'33

I explore impllcations of character ethics for communication in organiZations later in chapter 9. and the role of virtue ethics and character in political communication is examined at length in my essay in the appendix.

Implied Ethleal Contraets There are some general unspoken assumptions. some implicit

expectations. that seem to characterize most instances of public discourse.34 The speaker or writer believes that a problem or need exists that can be solved or satisfied through communication with other persons. The communicator also believes that the subject is tmportant to a number of persons whose aid can be sought and that the matter cannot be resolved by himself or herself alone. The subject is perceived as important enough to the communicator that she or he is willing to r1sk public evaluation. and both communicator

15 14 Chapter One

and audlence are assumed to be willing to open themselves to the possibilities to change- to altering their own views or actions. How should thls impUed general contract influence a communicator's and receiver's ethical Judgments? More precisely, are there some relevant ethical guidelines Imbedded in this implied contract? Might one be that dogmatic infiexibillty is ethically suspect?

In most public and private communication, a fundamental implied and unspoken assumption is that words can be trusted and people will be truthful. Unless there are reasons to be skeptical, we expect people to mean what they say. Also, even if persons do not know the absolutely certain "ultimate truth" about somethJng, we expect those persons to say what they believe to be true and not to say as true what they believe to be false . An observation by Jeffrey Olen concerning journalism applies equally well to human communication generally. We "don't ordinarily enler into explicit agreements to be truthful with one another.. .. The moral prohibItion against lying provides. in effect. an implicit agreement, allowing us to expect the truth from one another," Ph11osopher Warren Shlbles agrees: "Strictly speaking. we usually do not have a contract with people not to lie. It Is just impUed or assumed that we will not Ue." Tmst in some degree of truthfulness. argues. Slssela Bok in Lylng. is a JoundaHon of relations among human beings." We must trust the words of others 1 we are to trust that they will treat us fairly. not harm us, and have our welfare at heart. "If there is no confidence in the truthfulness of others ... how. then, can they be trusted?" Bok stresses: "Whatever matters to human beings, trust is the atmosphere in which it thlives. ,,35

Beyond a general implied ethical contract, various types of com munication settings, communicator roles, and each specific situation may have unspoken expectations that help define the ethical relationship between communicator and audience. 36 As a professor teaching a college course on communication ethics. I assume (perhaps naively) that students in the course will be honest and truthful with me even more than they might be with some others in other contexts or relationships . Thus I have felt betrayed when thjs implicit expectation occasionally has been violated through plagiarism in a term paper or cheating on an examlnation. What is your judgment of the implied ethical contract I assume in my course? Consider another example reflective of role and situation.

Imagine that you are an audience member llstenlng to a speaker. call him Mr. Bronson. representing the American Cancer Society. HIs aim is to persuade you to conlrtbute money to the research efforts sponsored by the American Cancer SocIety. Suppose that. with one exception. all of the evidence, reasoning. and motivational appeals he employs are valid and above ethical suspiCion. But

Ethical Responsibility in Human CommunicaUon

at one point in the speech Mr. Bronson consciously chooses to use a set ofjalse statistics to scare the audience into believing that. during their lifetime, there is a much greater probability of their getting some form of cancer than there actually is .

To promote analysiS of the ethlcs of this persuasive situation, consider these issues: IT the audlence. or society at large, views Mr. Bronson's persuasive end or goal as worthwhile. does the worth of his end justify his use of false statistics as a means to help achieve that end? Does the fact that he consciously chose to use false statiStics make a d11Ierence in your evaluation? If he used the false statistics out of 19norance. or out of failure to check his sources, how might your ethical judgment be altered? Should he be condemned as an unethical person. as an unethical speaker, or as one who in this lnstance used a specifiC unethical technique?

Carefully consider the standards you would employ to make your ethical judgment. Are they purely pragmatic? In other words. should Mr. Bronson avoid false statistics because he might get caught? Are they societal in origin? If he gets caught. his credibility as a representatLve would be weakened with this and future audlences. Or hls getting caught might weaken the credibility of other American Cancer Society representatives.

Should hls communication ethics be criticiZed because be violated an implied agreement of trust and honesty between you and him? Your expectations concerning honesty. accuracy. and relevancy of information probably would be dIfferent for bim as a representative of the American Cancer Society in contrast lo the stereotypical used car dealer. You might not expect a representative of such a humanltarlan society to use questionable techniques, and thus you would be especially vulnerable .

Approaches to Ethical Jud\1ment What ethical standards should be used by communicator and

communicatee in judging choices among communicative techniques. contents. and purposes? What should be the ethical responsibilities of a communicator in contemporary society'? Obviously. answers to these quesUons are ones we should face squarely. We should formu late meaningful eth1cal guidelines. not inflexible rules, for our communication behavior and [or evaluating the communication of others.

The study of communication ethics should encompass both individual ethics and social etblCS. What are the ethical virtues of character and the central ethical standards that should guide indlvtdual choices? What are tile ethical standards and responsibilities that shouid guide the communication of organlzations and insUtuUons--public and private, corporate. governmental. or professional?

~U4p[er Unc

For an et.h.ically suspect COmmunication practice, where should wdiVidual and collective responsibWty be placed? The study of communication ethics should suggest standards both for indiVidual. dally. and context-bound communication choices and also for institutional/systemic policies and practices.

One purpose of this book is to make us more dtscernmg receivers and consumers of COmmunication by encouraglng ethical judgments of communication that are specIfically focused and carefully considered. In maktngJudgments of tile ethics of our own Communication and the Communication to which we are exposed. our a1m should be specific rather than vague assessments. and carefully Considered rather than reflex-response. "gut level" reactions.

The follOWing framework of questions is offered as a means of making more systematic and firmly grounded judgments of commu37 nication ethics. At the same time we should bear in m1nd philosoher Stephen Toulmln's observation that "moral reasoning Is so complex. and has to cover such a variety of types of Situations. that

o one lOgical test. . . can be expected to meet every case...38 InEunderSCOring the complexity of making ethical Judgments. in The Virtuous Joumalist. Kla1dman and Beauchamp reject the "false premise that the world is a tidy place of truth and falSity. right and wrong, Without the ragged edges of uncertainty and risk." Rather they argue: "Making moral judgments and handling moral dilemmas require the balanCing of often ill-defined competing claims. usuallyin untidy circumstances.'39

1. Can I specify exactly what ethical criteria, standards. or perspectives are being appl1ed by me or others? What Is the concrete grounding of the ethical judgment?

2 . Can I justify the reasonableness and relevancy of these stan

dards for this particular case? Why are these the mOl'/t appropri

ate ethical criteria among the potential Ones? Why do tllese take

priority (at least temporarily) over other relevant ones?

3. Can I indIcate clearly in what respects the communication being

eValuated succeeds or fails in measuring up to the standards?

What judgment is justified in this case about the degree of ethi

cality? Is the most appropriate judgment a specIfically targeted

and narrowly focused one rather than a broad, generalized. and

encompassing one?

4. ill this case to whom is ethical responsiblllty owed- to which indiViduals. groups, organizaUons. or professions? In what ways and to what extent? Which responsibUities take precedence over others? What is the cOmmUnicator's responsibility to herself or himself and to society-at-Iarge?

Ethi cal Responsibility in Human Communication 17

5. How do I feel about myself after thIs ethical choice? Can I continue to "live with myself' in good conscience'? Would I want my parenls or spouse to know of this chotce? Would I feel ashamed ofmysel1?

6. Can the ethicallty of t.h.is communication be Justified as a coherent reflection of the communlcator's personal character? To what degree is the chOice ethically "out of character"?

7. If called upon in public to Justify the ethics of my communication, how adequately could I do so? What generally accepted reasons or rationale could I appropriately offer?

8. Are there precedents or similar previous cases to which I can turn for ethical guidance? Are there Significant aspects of this instance that set it apart from all others?

9. How thoroughly have alternatives been explored before settling on this particular chOice? Might this choice be less ethical than some of the workable but hastily rejected or ignored alternatives? If the only avenue to successful achievement of the commWlicator's goal requires use of unethical corrunWlication techniques. is there a reallstic chOice (at least temporarily) of refraining from commtUl1cation~f not communicating at all? There are. of course. other possible frameworks for ethical

decision m aking. some especially useful for journalism and the mass media .40 In particular you are encouraged to read more extensively about one suggested by Rushworth Kidder. former reporter and edJtor for a na tional newspaper and founder of the illstitute for Glob al Ethics. ill parap hrased form. here are nine "checkpoints" that Kidder believes illuminate "the underlying structure of ethical decision making:04 1 First, recognize there is a moral issue and of !What It consists. Second. determine the moral agent or agents who have the responsibility for decision or action . What are their responsibilities? Third. carefully gather and consider the relevant facts of the situation . Fourth. determine lf the ethical issue clearly is one of a chOice between rtght and wrong. ethical or unethical. Or. fifth. determine If the ethical issue may be a choice between two competing ethIcal . gOOd, or right things to do (such as truth versus loyalty, indiVidual versus communlty. short-term versus long-term. justice versus mercy). Sixth. resolution principles. such as utilitarianism. consequences, categorical rules . or carIng. are applied in analysiS. Seventh. if the Issue seems to be a dilemma between two good or two bad options, diligently explore all possible alternatives to develop a more acceptable third option. Eighth. make a deciSion. Ninth . after the action 1s taken. evaluate the action again to learn possible lessons.

18 Chapter One

Forecast Throughout this book we present a variety of starting points

and materials to aid in analyzing ethics In human COmmunication. Certatnly they are not to be viewed as the "last word" on the subject or as the only possible ones. Rather they should s timulate our thinking and encourage reflective Judgment.

In chapters 2 through 6 we explore seven perspectives for ethical assessment of human Communication. Each perspective represents a major ethical viewpoint or conceptual "lens" that scholars intenuonally, and others often unknow1ngly. use to analyze specific Issues and Instances. As categories. these perspectlves are 110t mutually exclusive of each other and they are not in any priority. These perspectives should not be taken as exhaustive of possible stances; probably each of us could think of others. For each perspective, the essential elements- the sources of grounding- for that general perspective are briefly explalned. Examples-versions-of each perspective are then analyzed. VerSions simply are illustrative, not exhaustive.

In chapter 7. we explore some fundamental ethical issues and problems facing us individually and collectively as COmmunicators. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss standards that have been suggested specifically for Interpersonal communication, small group discussion, and communication in organizations. Chapter 10 discusses the pros and cons of formal codes of ethics, together With examples of formal codes from advertiSing. public relations, political communicatlon, and journalism. Chapter 11 surveys some contrIbutions to communication ethics from feminist theory, and chapter 12 examJnes ethical s tandards and issues in intercultural and multicultural COmmunication . In an appendix are reprinted essays Jn which one or more of the ethical perspectives in this book are reflected or applied . A list of relevant video and Internet resources is provided. The extensive bibliography of Sources for FUrther Reading is categorized according to the chapters in the book. but it also contains a special section on ethics in mass Communication.

Through examination of various perspectives, issues, problems, examples, and case studIes, this book seeks to aid students and teachers of human communication. The goal Is exploration of ethical responsIbilities In contemporary commUnication- whether that COmmunication is oral or Written, whether it is labeled informative. persuasive, or rhetOrical, whether it Is labeled Interpersonal,pUblic . or mass.

Ethical Respons1bJU t:y in Human CommunicaUon 19

Note. l See , for example, Carl Wellman, MoraLs and Eth icS . 2d ed . (Englewood Cliffs . NJ: Pr entice-Hall, 1988). pp. ldlJ-XVi\l, 267. 2MlItoll Rokeach. The Nature of Human Values (New York : MacmUlan/Free Press, 1973). pp . 13. 20 ; RJcbard L. Means , The Ethica l Imperative (Garden CIty, NJ; Doubleday, 1969), p. 12.

3 For one attempl to Side-step eLhlcal Issues . see Theodore LeVill, "Are Advertising and Marketing Corruptlng Society? It's Not Your Worry." Aduer t ls lng Age (October 6, 1958); 89- 92; a rebutlallo Ul ls position Is Clyde Bedell, "To the Extent Advertis ing and Marketing are Corrup ting Society- You'd Better Worryl'" Adver tising Age (October 27, 1958): 101 - 2.

4Thomas R. NlIsell., E thics of Speech Communlcat{on , 2d ed. (Indianapolis : BobbsMerrUl . 1974). p . 15. 5Davld Maranls$, "The Comeback Kid's Last Return ," Wash ing ton Post National Week ly Edltlon. September 2-8. 1996 , pp . 8- 9 . 6This explanaUon of the Golden Mean Is indebted to CUfford G. Christians et aI. , Media E l h i.c..

20 Chapter One

15 Margaret Urba n Walker. Moral Unders tandings; A Feminist Study In Ethtcs. [New Yor k : Roulledge, 1998 ). pp. 93-100 . espec. 94.

16 PlncoU's. "On Belng Respons ible for Wh at One Says." 17 Dag HarmnarskJold . Mark ings [New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1964 ). p. 112. 18 Nicholas Rescher. Dia lectics : A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory oj Know/edge (Albany: State University of New Yor k Press . 197 7 ), pp . 78-82 : also sec Olen H. Stamp and Mark L. Knapp . "The Cons truct of Inten t in Interpersonal Communication." Qua rter ly Journal oj Speech. 76 (August 1990): 282-99 .

19 John Sabini and Maury S ilver. Moralities oj Everyday Life (New York: Oxfor d Un ivers ity Press. 1982 ). pp. 65-66.

20 Wayne C. Booth . Mode rn Dogma and the RhetOric oj Assent (Notre Dame: Univers ity of Notre Dame Press. 1974); also see Arnold M. Ludwig. The Importance oj Lying (Spr ingfield. LL : Charles C . Thomas . 1965). p . 227 .

21 Peter Dr ucker. The Changing World oj the Executive (New York: Times Books. 198 2). p. 249.

22The fo Llowlllg s ummary ts paraphrased from J ames Rest e l a\.. Postconventiona l Moral Th inki ng (Mahwah . NJ : E r lbaum . 1999 ). pp . lOO- 3 ; J ames Rest and Darcia Narvaez , eds ., Mora l Deve lopment in the Projesstons (Hillsdale. NJ : Erlbaum . 1994 ). pp. 22-25 ; James Rest, Moral Development: Advances in Theory and Research (New York: Praeger, 1986). pp. 3-18.

23 Carter. Civility. p . 274; Carter. [in tegrity ) (New York: Basic Books. 1996). pp. 7-12. 24 Walker, Mora l Understandings. pp . 115-20 . 25 Karen Lebacqz, Projess iona l Ethics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985 ). p p . 77-91:

Steven Klaidman and Tom L. Beauchamp , The VIr tuous J ournaLiS t (New York: Oxford University Press , 1987), pp. 17- 20 : Strulley Hauerwas, Truthfulness and Tragedy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press , 1977) . pp. 20. 29 .

26 rucha rd DeGeorge, Bus iness Ethics. 3rd ed . (New York : Macmillan, 1990). p. 94 . 27 Lebacqz, p . 83 . 28 Stanley B. Cunn ingham. "Getting It Right: Aristotle's 'Golden Mean' as Theory Deterio

ration ," Journa l oj Mass Media EthiCS, 14 (1999 ): 5-15 . Also see W. D. Ross. Aristo tle: A Complete Exposition oj H iS Works and Thought (New York: MeridIan Books , 1959), p . 19 1: J. 0 _Urmson. "Aristotle's Doctr1n.e of the Mean ." American Philosop hical Quarterly. 10 (1 973 ): 223- 30, espec. 226: Aristotle. Nlchomachean Ethics . at 1128a. 3-5.

29 KJaidman and Beauchamp, p. 17 30 "Oliver North. BUSinessman? Many Bosses Say Tha t He's T ileir Kind of Employee:'

The Wall Street Journa l . July 14. 1987. Eastern Edi tion. sec. 2. p . 35. 31 Paul Taylo r, "Our Peop le-Magazined Race for the Presidency." Wll.'ihlngton Post

Na tional Weekly Edition. November 2. 198 7. p. 23 . 32 Jonathan Alter, 'The Search tor Personal Flaws: Newsweek, October 19 . 198 7. p. 79. 33Walter R. Fisher, Communication as Narra tion (Columbia: University of South CaroUna Press , 1987), pp. 4 7, 147--48 . Als o see J ody Palmou r. On Moral Character: A Pra.cUcal gu ide to A r iS totle's VI r tues a nd Vices (Wash ington. DC: Archon Institule for Leadership Developmen t. 1987) .

34 Roderick P. Hart . Gustav W. Friedrich , and Barry Br ummett, Publ i.e Communication. 2d ed. (New York : Harp er and Row, 1983). pp . 13-15 ; Ca roll Arnold . Critic ism oj Ora l Rheto r iC (Columb us , OH : Chas. E. Merrill. 1974). pp. 38-43 .

3S J efIrey Olen . Eth ics In Journa lism (Englewood CUffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail, 1988), p p . 2-4; War ren Shibles . Lylng (WbJtewater, W1: Language Press . 1985 ). p. 145; Siss ela Bok . Lying (New York: Vintage Books . 1979). pp. 32- 33.

36 For elaboration of this vlewp-oln t see Olen. Ethics in J ournalism. pp. 4--3 1, 79-80, 101-2 : B. J. DiggS. Persuasion and EthicS," Quarterly Journal oj Speech , 50 (December 1964), 359-73 ; Robert D. Mu rphy, Mass Communication and Human Interact ion (Boston: Houghton Miffiin. 1977). p p. 81-1 04; Katllleen Hall Jamieson, Dirty PoWles (New York : Oxford Un iversity Press . 1992 ). p. 59; James E. Por ter.

:.!:l

"T he Role of Law. PoliUcs, and E thics tn COrporate Composing: Toward a PraeUcal Eth ics for Professional Writing," In Projesstonal Communlcatton. Nancy R. Blyler and Charlotte Thral.1s . eds. (Newbury Park. CA: Sage. 1993 ). p . t34 .

37 For some of these questions I have freely adapted the discusslons of H. Eugene Goodwill. Grop ing j or Eth Ics In J ourna lism. 2d ed. (Ames : Iowa Stale tJnlve-rsily PresS. 1987). p p . 14-15; Chris tians, et al ., Med ia EthicS, 2d ed .. pp. 17- 20 ; C . Perelm an and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca , The New RhetorIc . LTans. J ohn Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame : Univers ity of Nolre Dame PresS, 1969). pp . 25 . 483 .

38 Stephen Toulmin, An Examination oj the Place oj Reason In Eth ics lEngland : Cambr idge University Press. 1950)' p. 148.

39 Klaidroan and Beauchamp, The Virtuous JournaliSt, p. 20 . 40 For example. see Clifford G. ChristianS e l al ., Media Ethtcs: Cases and Moral Rea

sonIng. 6th ed . (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2001). pp. 1-30 : Lar ry Z . Les lie , Mass Communlca/{o n Eth ics : Declslon Making in Postmoder n Cullure (Boston: Houghton Milllin. 2000)' chapter 10 .

41 RushworUl M. Kidder. How Good People Make Rough Choices (New York: Marrow. 1995)' espec. pp. 180-86 . Also s ee Sherry BakeI'. "Applying Kidder's E thical DeCiSion-Making Checklist to Mass Media Et.hics." Journal oj Mass Med Ia Ethics, 12 (1997): 197-210.

Ethical Responsibility tn Huma n Communication

Johannesen-copyright.pdfEthics in Human Communication IntroEthical Responsibility in Human Comm 1st p.pdfEthical Responsibility in Human Comm rest