Communications Question

User Generated

qnanwn0623

Business Finance

Description

Canvas Reading: Do Americans Shop too Much? (Schor)

& Undressing the Ad (Frith)

Canvas Reading: There Oughta be a Law; What is Internet Hate? (Foxman and Wolf)

Canvas Reading: Lying (Harris)

Ch. 13 (Neher & Sandin)

What guidelines/suggestions would you give the media on making ethical choices? Why are these recommendations important in our current society? 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Communicating Ethically This thoroughly updated third edition of Communicating Ethically provides a broad introduction to the ethical nature of communication, bringing together classical and modern theories of ethical philosophy to address issues at play in specific careers and domains throughout the field. By incorporating a simple framework for ethical reasoning, the reader will be able to develop their own understanding of the various criteria for making ethical judgments. This book applies ethical theories such as virtue ethics and dialogical ethics to contexts of interpersonal, organizational, political, and digital communication. This edition contains expanded coverage of contemporary and non-Western theories and contexts, including Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, social media and “fake news,” and concerns of inclusion and marginalization. Each chapter contains Overview and Key Ideas sections, and the book contains a Glossary. This book serves as core textbook for undergraduate courses in communication and media ethics, and can also serve as a supplemental resource for field-specific courses in strategic communication, interpersonal communication, and public relations. Online resources for instructors include sample syllabi, sample assignments, and quiz questions. They are available at www.routledge.com/ 9780367358471. William W. Neher is professor emeritus of communication studies at Butler University, USA, where he taught for 42 years. Over those years he has served as Dean of the University College, Director of the Honors Program, Head of the Department of Communication Studies, the Chair of the Faculty Governance, and most recently as the first Dean of the new College of Communication that opened in June 2010. He is the author of several books dealing with organizational and professional communication, ethics, and African studies, plus several public speaking and communication textbooks. Communicating Ethically Character, Duties, Consequences, and Relationships Third Edition William W. Neher Third edition published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of William W. Neher to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Pearson Education, Inc. 2007 Second edition published by Routledge 2017 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-35430-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-35847-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-34228-8 (ebk) Typeset in Meridien by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Visit the eResources: www.routledge.com/9780367358471 CONTENTS xiii Preface xvi Acknowledgments 1 Introduction to Communication Ethics Chapter Outline Overview 1 Key Ideas 2 1 1 Everyday Ethical Decisions 2 Approaches to Reasoning about Communication Ethics 4 Definitions 7 The Supposed “Inconvenience” of Ethics The Scope of Communication Ethics 10 Questions and Topics for Discussion 11 Notes PART ONE 2 8 12 Theories and Perspectives 13 Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 15 Chapter Outline Overview 15 Key Ideas 16 15 The Concept of Character and the Virtues Background of Virtue Ethics 16 17 The Art of Persuasion and Ethics 19 v VI CONTENTS Aristotle: The Foundation for Communication Theory and Ethics 20 Contemporary Virtue Ethics 27 Implications for Communication Ethics 30 Courage as a Virtue in Ethical Communication Case Study: Money And Friendship 32 Questions for Analysis of the Case 33 Chapter Summary 33 Questions and Topics for Discussion 3 Notes 35 Duties 37 Chapter Outline Overview 37 Key Ideas 38 30 34 37 Is Lying Always Wrong? 38 Kant’s System of Deontological Ethics 39 Other Universal Ethics of Communication Alternatives to Universal Systems 43 48 Modern Trends: Jürgen Habermas and Discourse Ethics 55 Case Study: Oskar Schindler, The Righteous Gentile Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 59 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 4 61 Consequences 63 Chapter Outline 63 Overview 63 59 60 58 CONTENTS Key Ideas 64 Introduction to Utilitarianism 64 The Principle of Utilitarianism 65 Foundations of Utilitarian Ethics: Bentham and Mill Implications of Utilitarian Ethics Variants on Utilitarianism 72 Egalitarianism and Social Justice Theories Rawls: The Ethics of Social Justice 76 77 80 Scanlon and Reasonable Obligations to Others Highlights of Egalitarianism 83 86 Case Study: Surveillance at Sizgie Corporation Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 87 88 89 Questions and Topics for Discussion 5 66 68 Highlights of Utilitarian Ethical Systems Notes VII 90 90 Relationships 92 Chapter Outline 92 Overview 92 Key Ideas 93 Dialogue in the “Real World” 93 Foundations of Dialogical Ethics Martin Buber: I and Thou 94 94 Carl Rogers: Unconditional Positive Regard Emmanuel Levinas: The Other 98 100 Paulo Freire: The Ethics of Empowerment 103 Summary of Dialogic Theories of Communication Case Study: The Summer in France 105 Questions for Analysis of the Case 106 104 VIII CONTENTS Chapter Summary 107 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 6 108 108 Contemporary Challenges to Traditional Ethics 110 Chapter Outline Overview 110 Key Ideas 111 What Is Modern? 110 111 Postmodern Perspectives 112 Summary of Postmodern Ethics 122 The Feminist Critique of Traditional Ethics Case Study: The Prodigal Child 133 Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 134 135 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes PART TWO 7 123 137 138 Issues, Settings, and Applications Ethics in Interpersonal Communication: Relationship and Character 143 Chapter Outline Overview 143 Key Ideas 144 143 Introduction to Interpersonal Communication The Nature of Interpersonal Communication The Ethics of Dialogue in Interpersonal Communication 147 144 145 141 CONTENTS Principles of Dialogical Ethics IX 148 Conflict in Interpersonal Communication 150 Ethical Communication in Interpersonal Relationships: Character Counts 151 Trust and Manipulation in Interpersonal Relationships 153 The Ethics of Self-Disclosure 155 Case Study: Should She Tell? 157 Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 160 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 8 159 161 161 Ethics of Intercultural Encounters and Inclusive Communication 162 Chapter Outline Overview 163 Key Ideas 163 Issues of Diversity 162 164 The Demographics of “Difference” Intercultural Communication 165 166 Ethical Perspectives on Intercultural Communication Communication and People with Disabilities Analyzing Ethical Issues of Harmful Speech and Political Correctness 182 Case Study: Security and Discrimination Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 189 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 192 189 191 187 176 171 X 9 CONTENTS Ethical Issues in Mass Communication Chapter Outline Overview 193 Key Ideas 194 193 193 Introduction to the Field of the Media and Mass Communication 194 Defining Mass Media and Mass Communication 195 Overview of Ethical Problems in Mass Communication 197 Professional Codes of Ethics in Mass Communication Effects of Mass Communication 201 Applications of Ethical Principles to the Mass Media 214 Case Study: Publication of the Snowden Files on NSA Surveillance 219 Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 221 221 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 223 223 10 Ethics of Political Communication Chapter Outline Overview 225 Key Ideas 226 225 225 Uneasy Relations of Politics and Ethics Ethics and Political Communication 226 230 Political Consultants and Public Relations The Role of Lobbyists 236 240 Framework for Ethical Political Communication Case Study: Public and Private Information 250 244 199 CONTENTS Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 251 251 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 252 253 11 Ethics in Organizational Communication Chapter Outline Overview 255 Key Ideas 256 255 255 Significance of Ethical Issues in Organizational Communication 256 Definitions and the Nature of Organizational Communication 257 Ethical Issues in Organizational Communication Responsibility to Community and Society 258 258 Ethical Vantage Points for Issues in Organizational Communication 278 Rawls and Habermas Utilitarianism 279 280 Case Study: Good Business or Bribery? Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 282 283 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 281 284 285 12 Ethics of Online Communication and Social Media Chapter Outline Overview 287 Key Ideas 288 287 287 The Changing Face of Online Communication 288 XI XII CONTENTS Characteristics of Online Communication 290 Major Ethical Issues in Online Communication 294 Ethical Framework for Digital Communication 301 Case Study: Shared Trouble 307 Questions for Analysis of the Case Chapter Summary 308 308 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes 309 310 13 Capstone 311 Chapter Outline Overview 311 Key Ideas 312 311 Teaching and Learning Ethics: Can It Be Done? Ideals versus Practice Revisited 313 Ethical Equilibrium in Communication 314 Challenges and Issues for Further Studies in Communication Ethics 315 Topic for Discussion: Writing a Personal Code of Communication Ethics 320 A Final Word 323 A Last Look at Dialogue 324 Questions and Topics for Discussion Notes Glossary 325 325 326 Select Bibliography and Further Reading Index 339 330 312 PREFACE This book serves as a text for undergraduate courses in communication ethics, or as a companion text for courses in interpersonal, organizational, business, small group, or other communication courses. Faculty who teach general introductions to the field of communication or capstone courses for communication majors will also find the book useful. Outside the field of communication studies, the text can be used for business administration courses in leadership, management, organizational devel­ opment, and similar courses. In addition, it can serve as a supplementary work for service learning, experiential courses, or internships in areas of communication. These purposes reflect our belief that more and more col­ leges and universities are emphasizing ethics in both their general curricu­ lum and their disciplinary curricula. The text is organized and grounded in ethical theories, with realistic cases for study and analysis in each chap­ ter, and is responsive to this growing concern about the ethics of commu­ nication in our contemporary world. The text can also serve as a general reference for professionals in the fields of communication (media relations, public relations, corporate com­ munications, and the like), or for people in helping professions, particu­ larly those working with the disabled, in interpersonal counseling, or in employee relations. Several conditions arising since original publication necessitate updating and revising this text. Three of the most significant are the following: (1) the striking explosion of social media and interactive communication sys­ tems; (2) growing emphasis on the need for inclusion of all people in all kinds of organizations, institutions, and settings, especially involving racial, sexual orientation, and religious issues and identifications; and (3) a coarsening and sensationalizing of public discourse. In addition, the first point, regarding the proliferation of social media, leads to expanding material throughout the book showing the effects of online communication and social media in interpersonal, mass, political, and organizational communication as well as communication of inclusion and diversity of others. Beyond these major considerations is the simple need for updating throughout the text of examples, allusions, references, and case studies. The Structure of the Book The aim is to make students aware of the major philosophical grounds for analyzing and thinking about ethical decisions in their own or others’ xiii XIV PREFACE communication. In doing so, Chapter 2 begins with the basic questions about the ethical nature of rhetoric and communication that go back as far as the classical foundations of the field. The issues first enunciated by Plato challenging the Sophists’ teaching about rhetoric and the answers advanced by Aristotle continue to be basic to the whole field of communi­ cation, especially in light of television, cable, and computerized technolo­ gies of communication. Each of the five chapters, constituting Part One, presents an overview of major systems of ethical reasoning developed over many years to guide our thinking in making ethical decisions: Character, emphasizing virtue ethics; Duties, covering Kantian and universalistic systems of ethics; Conse­ quences, including utilitarianism and egalitarian, or contractualist, theories of ethics; Relationships, which deals primarily with dialogical ethics; and, in a final chapter in Part One, postmodern and feminist responses to these traditional approaches to ethics. In Part Two, Chapters 7 through 12 cover applications of ethics in various communicative settings. In these chapters, we consider the special ethical issues arising when dealing with interpersonal communication and communi­ cation with diverse others, such as people with disabilities or from other cul­ tures or subcultures. There is also increased attention to the concerns raised by movements such as #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and various aspects involving LGBTQ+ issues. We will also devote chapters to the ethical questions and situ­ ations that arise in mass communication, politics, and organizational settings. Specific topics include questions of political advertising and campaigning, the challenge of “fake news,” political action committees, the role of political con­ sultants and lobbyists, whistle-blowing in organizations, ethics in corporate communication, and the like. A major new emphasis is on the impact of social media and other forms of Internet communication in all these areas. Each chapter includes the following: ■ a chapter outline and a brief overview; ■ a list of key ideas at the beginning, foreshadowing topics to be covered; ■ a chapter summary at the end; ■ topics and questions intended to stimulate discussion of the issues covered in the chapter. In carrying out the overall plan for the text, we include some distinctive features as aids for teaching and learning: ■ use of case studies illustrating principles for each chapter, except in the capstone chapter; ■ incorporating communication with people with disabilities in Chapter 8 on diversity; PREFACE XV ■ including a chapter on ethics of online and social media communica­ tion (Chapter 12); ■ including a capstone chapter to pull together the various themes and topics covered throughout the text (Chapter 13); ■ a Glossary of important terms. Reasoning about Communication Ethics In this text, we do not intend to teach communication ethics but, rather, to teach about communication ethics, especially to teach reasoning about com­ munication ethics. Reasoning through ethical issues, dilemmas, or problems can follow a process as the following. First, one ought to determine what the facts in the case are. Does the statement of the ethical problem point to all the relevant elements or facts in the situation? Second, one needs to determine what set of criteria for judgment make the most sense when analyzing the problem. What ethical principles should we bring to bear in determining what is right or wrong about the situation? Finally, we need to argue a question involving what steps to take in view of this analysis. What would be the most ethical action to take? What does our ethical reasoning tell us is the right action to take? Given this framework, we feel it is important for students to develop an understanding of the various criteria that have been formulated for making ethical judgments. Part One presents these various systems of value criteria and reasoning about them. Utilitarianism, for example, emphasizes the consequences of one’s action, while a universalistic system such as Kant’s lays most stress on one’s intentions for carrying out an action. Part Two considers applications of ethical principles in various communication contexts. We hope that the issues presented in the chap­ ters as well as the case studies in each will allow students to try out and discuss, even argue about, different reasoned approaches to the issues and cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have encouraged and supported me in the developing and writing of this text. Special recognition belongs to the memory of my original co-author in this project. Paul Sandin was one of the most effective and well-respected undergraduate teachers I have known. He played a key role in developing the movement, leading to speaker-tutoring centers or labs throughout the United States and Canada. His wisdom and counsel were fundamental to the reasoning behind and development of this text. His passing in 2012 was a great loss to our institution, the field, his students and family, and to me personally. The students I have worked with over the years in the classes on com­ munication ethics have afforded me an appreciation of the importance of ethical thinking and feeling in their lives. They have often challenged me, helping me to sharpen and refine my own thinking about how people think through ethical challenges in their own communication. I wish to express my gratitude to the professionals at Routledge, who helped me with their advice and suggestions in bringing the work to pub­ lication. Especially we wish to thank the series editor and the series edi­ torial assistant. I am grateful for the very helpful suggestions and comments made by those who participated in various stages reviewing this text. Finally, I thank my family for their patience and support as I spent long hours and days (and nights) at keyboards and computer screens research­ ing and writing. I owe a special thanks to Linda, my wife, and my family. xvi CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Communication Ethics CHAPTER OUTLINE Overview Definitions Key Ideas The Supposed “Inconvenience” of Ethics Everyday Ethical Decisions Approaches to Reasoning about Communication Ethics Character Facing Real Life The Scope of Communication Ethics Consequences Questions and Topics for Discussion Relationships Notes Duties Overview By an ethical issue we mean a case in which one can raise a question about whether a particular communication behavior is right or wrong. The question of whether something is right or wrong may seem like a loaded one. Who is to say whether what a person does is right or wrong for that person or that situation? We often feel that a person’s ethics or moral judgments are a matter of personal values and beliefs: can we really judge a person in such a case or, at least, judge their action? The arguments made and the questions raised in this chapter suggest we often make these judgments. Our feeling the need to justify or rational­ ize what might seem questionable actions reveals a sense that we can give reasons for or against them. This book is about trying to answer these and similar questions. We feel that you can reason about and give arguments for or against behaviors that can be considered ethical or unethical. Over 1 2 Introduction to Communication Ethics many years, philosophers, especially in the branch called ethics, have tried to develop systematic ways to reason about ethical issues. This chapter presents the major standards introduced by ethicists for making such ethical judgments: questions of Character, a sense of Duty, Consequences, and Relationships. Key Ideas ■ People are often faced with questions about ethics when communi­ cating with others. ■ We make ethical judgments when we do communicate. ■ Criteria for making ethical judgments can be based on the following sets of principles: □ One’s character or virtue □ Duties □ Consequences □ Relationships. ■ Ethics deals with judgments about intentional actions that can be justified to self and others as right or wrong. ■ Ethical issues arise in all forms of personal and public communication. Everyday Ethical Decisions Susan, a senior student in the capstone class, presented her professors and classmates with this dilemma. She had been accepted into three graduate schools but hoped to attend the one that offered the best package of financial aid, assistantships, or stipends. Each school, she explained, required a student to commit or indicate an intention to attend that school before considering the financial aid package they could offer the student (this was her under­ standing of the communication she had from the graduate schools). She said: “I feel that I have to commit myself and promise to attend all three under these circumstances, until I find out what kind of financial aid they are going to give me.” Feeling a little concerned about the ethics of her communication with the universities, she asked for advice from friends, who generally supported her in her deception, most by saying that was “how the game is played.” In the discussion, other students revealed that they had sometimes found themselves in similar situations and reassured Susan that they would mislead a prospective employer or graduate school in the same fashion. One student, Jonathon, reported that in a job interview he had communicated complete interest and dedication to that employer, without revealing he was really looking at several different offers. His reasoning was that one has to do Introduction to Communication Ethics 3 that in order to protect oneself, to cover all the bases so as not to be caught without any offers or prospects. Our discussions with students and colleagues concerning these situ­ ations reveal several different responses to the ethical issues they raise. Many students expressed the feeling that the graduate or law schools put students in an untenable situation by requiring commitment on the stu­ dent’s part before committing financial aid on their part. Their point implies the question, “If you are not being treated fairly or ethically, is it all right to reciprocate with a deception on your part?” Others maintained that these institutions are just institutions rather than real people with feelings—and that lying to them is not morally the same as lying to actual people. These institutions expect people will try to mislead them in these instances anyway, because, after all, “everybody does it.” In this kind of situation, students recognize that outright lying to others is a breach of communication ethics, but they maintain that circumstances, and especially the need for self-protection, change the equation. This sort of lying or deception is not really wrong, or at least not too bad, because of the circumstance, the parties involved, or the justification that these are standard practices and expectations. Again, the assumption is that this is the way the game is played. Another student, Michaela, seemed more concerned about the implica­ tions, however. “What about other students also wanting to go to the same graduate school and also needing financial aid?” she wondered. Would they be closed out or denied a spot, because Susan was essentially taking up three places instead of one? Michaela was exploring the issue of potential harm coming to others because of Susan’s communication of committing to all three schools. This concern is reminiscent of the response many people expressed when they learned of the admissions scandals involving wealthy or famous parents arranging falsified athletic admissions of their children into prestigious colleges, such as the University of Southern California or Yale. The admissions of these students implied the denial of admission to other students, given the restrictive admission standards at these schools. Susan then admitted that another reason she was feeling uneasy about her actions was that the faculty adviser at one of the colleges seemed very excited about her attending that school. The adviser described the other students and the faculty she would be working with and even sug­ gested people she could live with while settling in. It seems that this college became personal as an institution as a result of this kind of interaction. Michaela and Susan were beginning to show how we reason about ethical issues. At first, students believed that Susan’s deception was vic­ timless, except for the institution, which was not really a person. But Michaela’s contribution requires us to question that assumption. And Susan was pointing out that the lifeless institution itself did include some real people who may have real feelings. 4 Introduction to Communication Ethics Approaches to Reasoning about Communication Ethics Susan’s dilemma, as well as the issue facing the student in the job interview, raises issues of communication ethics. Let’s consider some of the perspectives one could take to thinking in a systematic way about the dilemma in Susan’s case. Character First, one could argue that her decision about whether to mislead the graduate schools reflected her upbringing and character. Does one’s action, in a case such as this, indicate that a person has a certain kind of character, or does her acting this way in one case lead to behaving deceptively in later cases? One instructor tried to explore this question with the class by asking what kinds of commitments were more important than others. For example, if one student has become engaged to another, that represents a commitment. Could this commitment be taken as lightly as the one involving the graduate schools or the job offers? Certainly not! At least, that was the response of nearly everyone in the room. This first approach to reasoning about ethics assumes a person with the right kind of character, one who possesses virtues such as honesty and truth­ fulness, will behave in an ethical way. The first kind of ethical system is based on the notion of character used in this sense, and is usually referred to as virtue ethics. This system may be the oldest of the ones we shall be considering and is linked, historically, with the oldest tradition of theories about human communication. Virtue ethics assumes that by practicing the right sort of vir­ tues, one will have a guide to making ethical decisions. In addition, the system assumes that there may be competing virtues that apply to any single case, requiring that a virtuous person be able to balance the different virtues appropriately. Duties Second, one could argue that the moral or ethical thing to do is based on a set of rules that are universal. This system would hold that lying is always wrong, although there may be differences in how wrong a given lie might be, given certain circumstances. This system assumes that any sort of falsehood or lying is presumed wrong until proven otherwise. The great philosopher most often associated with this way of reasoning about ethics was the German thinker, Immanuel Kant. He held that any kind of lying, even for a good cause, such as to save an innocent person from a murderer, was always wrong. Ethics according to this view is based on a set of unchanging duties, which may be Introduction to Communication Ethics 5 based on divine command, that is, based on religious precepts, or on human nature, or on the unalterable laws of reason and logic. Because the ancient Greek word for duty was deon, this type of eth­ ical reasoning is called deontological ethics. The question about Susan’s actions would be put in terms of whether or not her actions constituted a violation of a universal ethical rule or commandment. We should first determine whether or not in this particular case Susan had a duty to tell the exact truth to each graduate school. Did her misleading them consti­ tute lying (deliberately saying something that one knows not to be true)? If lying is always wrong, then was Susan wrong in this case? Consequences Third, one could argue that the question should revolve around what action results in the best outcome for the most people. This kind of system considers the outcome, the consequences of the behavior as the sole or at least major determining factor in the rightness or wrongness of an action. The most famous of the systems based on this sort of consequen­ tialism is utilitarianism. This word, coined in the nineteenth century and associated with the British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, means that the utility, the usefulness, of an action determines whether it should be considered ethical or not. We should emphasize that usefulness here means specifically the greatest, beneficial usefulness for the greatest number of people. Another form of the so-called consequentialism is concerned with whether or not the outcomes, the consequences, affect everyone involved equally. This system is based on the principle that everyone should be trea­ ted in the same way—it is therefore referred to as egalitarianism. Such an approach is concerned with living in a just society, and is concerned with social justice. A just society is based on the concept that members or citizens have accepted a social contract with other members or citizens based on the principles of social justice. If we were applying utilitarianism in Susan’s case, we would ask who was benefited by her communication. Obviously, she stood to gain by her action, but the question would be the total effect on other persons as well. Michaela’s question about other students wanting to be admitted to the same program seems relevant in this application. Similarly, the egalitarian viewpoint would seek to know whether others were less likely to receive equal consideration for admission or financial aid because of her action. Relationships A fourth way of looking at these issues grows from a concern for human rela­ tionships. How are relationships between individuals affected by one’s 6 Introduction to Communication Ethics communication behavior? It seems that Susan may have developed an inter­ personal relationship with a person at one or more of the schools. Did the rela­ tional nature of this interaction bring with it certain ethical obligations or expectations? This sort of consideration is associated with dialogical ethics, which derive from one’s responsibilities to another human being when engaged in meaningful dialogue or communication with that other person. In summary, the first four types of systems for reasoning about com­ munication ethics involve issues based on the following broad concepts: 1. Character 2. Duties 3. Consequences 4. Relationships. The first goal, then, is to make you familiar with each of the major sys­ tems for making ethical judgments so that you can see how they would be applied in communication. The field of ethics has been studied for a very long time and from many different perspectives, so we should not be surprised to learn that these are not the only systems for debating eth­ ical decisions that have been developed. Also, we emphasize here the word major, since there are many variations and permutations of these systems which will not be covered, at least not in detail. Chapter 2 will take up the application of virtue ethics, because of its early association with the study of persuasive communication in public life. In classical Greece and Rome, philosophers developed theories about ethics and communication. Contemporary authors have updated and refined these classical approaches as well. Chapter 3 will turn to the very influential system developed by the phil­ osopher, Immanuel Kant, and his system of universalistic ethics. We shall also consider some contemporary systems that are derived from the Kantian approach. Also, important and traditional systems of universal ethics are derived from, first, divine command theories, which bring in religious tradi­ tions, and, second, theories based on the concept of human nature. The human nature arguments for universal rules of ethics are sometimes, but not always, developed from biological theories of evolution—bioethics. Chapter 4 discusses two major systems based on consequentialism: the first is the system of utilitarianism, as developed by John Stuart Mill. The second can be referred to as egalitarianism or social contract (or con­ tractualism) theories, and these theories focus especially on the outcomes or consequences of communicative behavior. Chapter 5 turns attention to the ethics of dialogue, as represented in the works of Martin Buber, Carl Rogers, Emmanuel Levinas, and Paulo Freire. These related systems of dialogic ethics are especially important when we engage in interpersonal interactions. Introduction to Communication Ethics 7 In the concluding chapter of Part One, Chapter 6 takes up issues pre­ sented by the challenges of some contemporary approaches or concerns in ethics and the field of communication. First, we need to be aware of the challenge to any sort of rationalist system for ethical decision making rep­ resented by postmodern critics and theorists, as well as the perspectives represented by feminist ethics and other critical theories. In contrast to the more traditional philosophical approaches to ethics, these theories concentrate more on issues of social justice, emancipation, and concern for groups of marginalized or excluded people. Thoughtful people have been able to reason and therefore to debate rationally ethical issues. The aim of this book is to guide you through some of the various systems that you could adapt for judging whether a particular tactic or behavior could be considered to be eth­ ical or not. In order to proceed, however, we should clarify exactly what we are talking about when we use the term ethics and communica­ tion ethics. Definitions First, we should clarify what we mean by ethics and ethics of communication. In a technical sense, ethics is a branch of the field of philosophy, which concerns judgments about right and wrong actions. Beyond the discipline of philosophy, many fields include the study of and applications of ethics to their domain. Ethics refers to a systematic method for making judgments concerning voluntary actions of people. We need to highlight several aspects of this definition. ■ Ethics is intended to provide us with a system so that the decisions or judgments one makes can be justified to others and to oneself in a clear and objective manner. ■ Ethics is concerned with judgments about actions that can be determined to be right or wrong according to the principles of this method. ■ The judgments are to be made about actions, in which the actors appear to have a choice; they could have done otherwise. ■ The actions are seen as intentional: the persons seemed to know what they were doing and intended to do what they did. Communication ethics is the application of ethical thinking to situations involving human communication. In this book, we are concerned with interpersonal communication, in which two people are interacting face to face; public communication, such as public speaking; political communication; and mass and social communication. All these situations—face to face, public, and mass or 8 Introduction to Communication Ethics mediated communication—can also involve intercultural or cross-cultural communication. We further recognize that the so-called new media, or social media, represented by digital communication and computermediated communication, also cut across these various dimensions affect­ ing the ethics of communication. The Supposed “Inconvenience” of Ethics Will Rogers, an American humorist, was supposed to have remarked that he could resist anything but temptation. We are all often of the same mind. In principle, we can resist the temptation to wiggle around some ethical principle for reasons of expediency. But, when the real-life situation does come up, we find the temptation to make one exception—in order to get that great job, to achieve some personal dream, to get into the best law school, to get the coveted promotion—more powerful than it seemed when it was only a theoretical matter. As we begin our study of communication ethics, it may be useful to remember that ethical issues or dilemmas arise often when those principles seem to go against our personal wishes or what we would really like to do in a specific instance. The problem is that people may often claim a need to be flexible at times, because they feel that integrity can be too demanding, given the needs of everyday, modern life. Integrity, in other words, is an ideal but not really practical. A second problem is that people do not always agree on exactly what constitutes integrity. Of course, many believe that ethics and integrity are relative, depending on the culture or society in which one is born and brought up. Still, even in the same, homogeneous cul­ ture, there is disagreement on exactly what is the moral or ethical thing to do. It is our hope that in this text, you derive some systematic and principled way to argue or reason through those situations in which there are competing views of right and wrong. Let’s return to a case similar to the one with which we began this book. A student, David, brought up a familiar dilemma. He intended to go on to graduate school, but after laying out a year to work and gain some experience and money. At a job interview, it became clear that he could have a really good job if he committed to stay with the firm for at least two or more years. The question he had for the class was what he should do. The immedi­ ate response of several students, many of whom had completed one or two classes in ethics, was: “You lie.” They believed that getting the well-paying job took precedence over the theoretical principle of integ­ rity. The general feeling was that the world is impersonal and competi­ tive, and in this kind of world “you have to do what you have to do.” The real world requires hard-headed acts of self-interest, according to this way of thinking. If the world presented us with only cases in Introduction to Communication Ethics 9 which the action in our self-interest is also the action that accords with high principles and personal integrity, there would be no need for the study of ethics. We hope that in studying this text, you come to develop a method for thinking through dilemmas involving ethics and communication that you may face in the real world. We are not intending to give you the right answers, but rather a system or a process for analyzing such situations. Facing Real Life We have found that when we bring up real-life decisions that people have to make, in which it is in their interest to lie or prevaricate, they are often able to rationalize their action in doing so. Certainly the author has found himself in the same situation when faced with some of life’s ethical dilemmas. The justification that we encounter most often as the basis for such rationalization can be summed up in these words: “That is how the game is played.” So, if business is a game, politics is a game, and even courtship and marriage are games, do different or special rules of the game apply when we are playing? The problem with these so-called rules of the game, especially when our own preferences or desires are involved, is that it becomes easy to change them or simply to make them up as we go along. Another prob­ lem with this view of the “real world” is that it assumes that all other involved parties know the rules. Consider the graduate school faculty or the people in the business in our two running examples. If they knew that the commitments being made to them were simply ploys or moves in a game, would they take them seriously? Are the commitments being asked for like bluffs in the game of poker? Notice that the justifications advanced for lying or misleading others in these cases often depend on two other factors: 1. the other party is not really a person but an organization or an institution. 2. the other party is also being unfair or unreasonable. The serious business of the games we play in life, it would appear, allows us to take into account the supposed impersonal nature of the other party and the issue of assumed reciprocity. The rules of the game appear to allow us to treat institutions differently from real people. And, the rules might allow us to do unto others what they are trying to do unto us, or at least what we think they will try to do unto us. As I discuss the various approaches to ethics and communication in this text, I will often return to efforts to confront real life, as we try to 10 Introduction to Communication Ethics make systematic the dilemmas and decisions people face in communicat­ ing, ethically, with other people. The Scope of Communication Ethics The specific cases we have referred to so far involve decisions being made by individuals in regard to their own goals—education, employment, and the like. Communication ethics is of concern, however, beyond our own immediate lives and relationships. It does not take much effort to discover all sorts of questionable practices in the marketplace, media, and everyday interactions. Unfair political attack ads, spin doctors putting the best possible face on a bad political decision, speakers playing to prejudices in court­ rooms and election campaigns, so-called fake news, deceptive accounting reporting, racist or sexist or ageist jokes, overly-aggressive telemarketing, misleading mailers suggesting “You may already be a winner!”—this list of familiar, questionable communication practices emphasizes that the ethics of communication is a highly salient and relevant concern in our lives. In the early twenty-first century, ethics has become a dominant concern in political, business, and social lives. Campaigning for political office, espe­ cially at the national level, is truly big business, bigger than ever. Faced with mounting costs of media advertising and the presumed short attention span of viewers and listeners, political campaign spots and tweets have to be shorter and simpler than ever. Often the easiest and quickest point to make in these circumstances is an attack on the character of the opponent. While the polit­ ical smear is certainly nothing new in American political life, the range and far reach of the mass and the widespread forms of social media today have made it nearly ubiquitous. The spread of political communication through the Inter­ net or smartphones has made questionable political communication even more insidious and difficult to correct. Ethical questions are not limited to political communication, of course. Several major business scandals have dealt with unreliable or mis­ leading financial reports communicated by auditors, accountants, and top executives. Whistle-blowers brought the wrongdoing to light, raising questions about the ethical responsibilities of people to communicate mis­ deeds to the press, government, or the general public. Conflicts of interest raise similar concerns about ethical communication. A stock analyst, for example, ran afoul of a large telecommunica­ tion supplier when he raised questions about the reliability of the com­ pany’s financial reporting. The chief financial officer of the company was soon calling the head of the investment analysis firm complaining about these reports.1 As in the cases of questionable political communi­ cations, the businesses were trying to mislead the public and customers. Is there any wonder that a member of the Board of Trustees of the Introduction to Communication Ethics 11 State University of New York once stated, “Does anyone doubt the need for heightened standards of ethics in all the professions? In recent scandals, too many accountants, lawyers, bankers, security analysts, and cor­ porate officers allow self-interest and greed to trump long-standing principles of integrity.”2 In a more ethnically and religiously diverse society, people worry about communications that inflame or prejudice people against specific groups. In some cases, such hate speech is highly public and fanned by virulent tweets and other social media, or other online digital sites. Officials at colleges and universities have grown increasingly con­ cerned about hate speech on their campuses. Several campuses have tried to institute speech codes, intended to prevent prejudiced or big­ oted speech among students, staff, and faculty. In addition, faculty have been enjoined to include so-called “trigger warnings” about class materials that may evoke unfair or uncomfortable responses in their students. Such attempts have provoked a backlash from some groups, both conservative and liberal, concerned about perceived restrictions on freedom of speech. All these cases focus on communication intended to persuade people by words, by the use of rhetoric, the art of persuasive communication. The communication in these examples is often labelled unethical because it is based on partial truth, misleading statements, incorrect or irrelevant evidence, and similar tactics. Many of these cases have prototypes, ancestors that reach far back in the history of human communication. The classical Greeks, such as Plato and Socrates, over two thousand years ago, condemned practices similar to these contemporary questionable tactics. Ethics has always been at the center of the systematic study and practice of human communica­ tion. Chapter 2 begins by placing communication ethics within that trad­ ition of the discipline of rhetoric and communication. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR 1. Discuss your response to the dilemmas presented by the students in this chapter. When, if ever, is it OK to play the game and mislead others in order to achieve your career goals? Do people often expect to be misled in these kinds of situations? What would you do if you were faced with the situation of the student forced to commit to a graduate school in order to be considered for financial aid, even if you were not sure you really wanted to attend that graduate school? Is it true that most institu­ tions expect to be misled about these matters anyway, since they know how the game is played? 12 Introduction to Communication Ethics 2. Is it true that everyone knows that when advertisers claim their product is the best, or the most popular, or the favorite whatever, it is just hype or permis­ sible boasting? If that is true, why do advertisers do it anyway? 3. Do you think that most politicians (all politicians?) are likely to withhold the whole truth or mislead voters or make promises they really cannot deliver on in order to get elected? Do most voters think of politics as a game of the sort we have described in this chapter? NOTES 1. Jesse Drucker and Jathon Safsford, “Analyze This: Firms Chafe at Criticism,” The Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2002, p. C1. 2. Candace de Rossy, “Professional Ethics Begin on the College Campus,” Chronicle of Higher Education, September 19, 2003, p. B20. PART ONE Theories and Perspectives CHAPTER 2 Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics CHAPTER OUTLINE Overview Contemporary Virtue Ethics Key Ideas Ethics of Care The Concept of Character and the Virtues Martha Nussbaum’s Ethics of Human Capabilities Background of Virtue Ethics The Art of Persuasion and Ethics The Charge against the Art of Persuasion Aristotle: The Foundation for Communication Theory and Ethics Implications for Communication Ethics Courage as a Virtue in Ethical Communication Case Study: Money and Friendship Questions for Analysis of the Case The Rhetoric Chapter Summary The Ethics Questions for Topics and Discussion Roman Developments in the Rhetorical and Ethical Tradition Notes Overview The emphasis on character and practicing the virtues represents perhaps the oldest tradition in the study of ethics: the system known as virtue ethics. The major Greek philosophers—Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle—formulated the seminal ideas about virtue ethics. The major religious traditions have also taught systems of virtue and the development of character. The ancient Chinese sage, Confucius, for example, believed that the right character of the superior person, or the educated gentleman, was required for right conduct. In these philosophical as well as religious traditions, the ideals of the virtues are more important than fallible human conduct. 15 16 Theories and Perspectives Key Ideas ■ Virtue ethics is associated with the earliest systematic theory of communication. ■ This perspective emphasizes integrity and living the most exemplary life. ■ Virtue ethics does not depend upon a set of rules or on consequences. ■ Doing the ethical thing is a central part of the most fully human way of living. ■ The “virtues” are types of human excellences. ■ Contemporary versions of virtue ethics for communication include the “Ethics of Care” and Martha Nussbaum’s approach of Human Capabilities. The Concept of Character and the Virtues Our first system of ethical principles concerns the moral character or integrity of an individual. In earlier times, people looked to the simple maxims of someone like Benjamin Franklin as a model for virtuous behavior. While still in his twenties, Franklin set down a list of thirteen virtues: ■ Temperance; don’t overindulge in food or drink. ■ Silence; avoid chattering. ■ Order; be organized. ■ Resolution; fulfill your obligations. ■ Frugality; waste not. ■ Industry; don’t waste time in idle pursuits. ■ Sincerity; speak honestly and forthrightly. ■ Justice; do right by others. ■ Moderation; avoid extremes, as in emotional responses. ■ Cleanliness; keep body, home, and clothes clean. ■ Tranquility; don’t be upset by insignificant events. ■ Chastity; keep a good reputation. ■ Humility; imitate Jesus and Socrates, according to Franklin. Franklin’s list of virtues, popularized in his famous Poor Richard’s Almanac, emphasized practical behaviors that, many people believed, would help one get ahead. In the end, Franklin himself abandoned his project to practice his thirteen virtues, because he saw it would be almost impossible, but being aware of these virtues, at least, he felt was worth the effort.1 Thomas Jefferson was known as a moral philosopher in addition to his many other intellectual talents. Jefferson’s ideas about the virtues and character are evident, first, in the Declaration of Independence. In his other Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 17 writings and reflections he also extolled the virtues of justice, benevo­ lence, industry, moderation, patience, self-reliance, and independence, and of course the public virtues of patriotism and political democracy.2 For generations, George Washington was also looked to as an exemplar of the popular virtues in his person and conduct, especially as commander of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Of course, one can hardly forget the famous story about George Washington and the cherry tree—“Father, I cannot tell a lie.” After all, as noted above, Franklin, who fathered at least one illegit­ imate son, decided to abandon his attempt to live up to all the virtues on his list as being impossible. Jefferson held to his ideals despite being a slave-owner and his fathering of children, it is alleged, with his slave, Sally Hemmings. Background of Virtue Ethics A person practicing virtue ethics decides the ethical course of action in any given situation by asking, “What would the person of exemplary character do in this circumstance?” In other words, ethical action is not determined by applying a set of rules, but rather is the result of good character and sound judgment. Our students often find this definition a little circular—it seems to say that virtue ethics requires being virtuous. The complication arises because practicing virtue ethics requires a way of living rather than following a set of rules. The person who has integrity or good character relies on his or her good judgment to act ethically in each given situation. A word that represents what we mean by communication ethics is integrity, which is one of the main characteristics many people say they look for in a leader. Most of us hope that other people will think of us as a person of integrity. The word shares a root with integral and inte­ grate, both of which bear the connotation of completeness or unity. An integral part of something is necessary to complete it, to make it whole. When we integrate something into something else, we make it a fitting and necessary part of the greater whole. In the same way, we think of a person with integrity as someone in whom principles or virtues are such a part of that person that they would not be complete, not be who they are, without that characteristic. The word then implies wholeness and completeness. It also implies consistency and steadfast commitment to principles. Socrates laid down the basis for virtue ethics when he argued that a person would not do evil knowingly. Let us be clear about the claim that is being made here. Socrates is saying that a person who truly and carefully contemplates the truth and the circumstances of his or her life will believe doing good even while suffering evil is preferable to any 18 Theories and Perspectives alternative. The character of the contemplative person, that person’s virtue, results in following these principles. Virtue ethics hence does not lay down rules for dealing with the various situations a person might encounter but maintains that the person who has the proper virtues will act correctly in all circumstances. In con­ trast to virtue ethics, many of the ethical systems encountered later in this text are rule-based. The classical Greeks believed that human virtue was manifested in a quality they called arête (which is often translated simply as virtue). Arête implied not only doing the right thing but also leading a noble life. We might say that it consists in living well, which means that one acts virtu­ ously or ethically. In other words, one does not do the ethical thing because it is a duty or in order to achieve some good end: doing the ethical thing is simply part of the most fully human way of living. One does not behave ethically in order to get the benefits of living well, but in living well one performs ethical actions. Ethical behavior is hence the consequence of character. The ethical action is performed not to achieve a desired consequence, but the action itself is the consequence of character. Because character is more important than rules in this system of ethics, it allows for flexibility in making ethical judgments. The key attri­ bute the ethical person requires is good judgment. The upshot is that one cannot easily predict in advance what the ethical act will be in all circum­ stances. It is better to leave decisions up to the person with mature and wise practical reason rather than try to provide one with rules, guidelines, or laws. Having the right kind of person at the right time is essential. But, of course, one might complain, how can we be sure of having the right person at the right time, and how do we, as fallible and inexperienced people, know what the right action might be under future circumstances? The answer to this question is not easy, although the implication is to do what the virtuous person would do. We often rely on models for good behavior in trying to develop the character to behave in the most ethical way. For example, some religious people refer to the phrase WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) as a guide for thinking through ethical decisions. Even professional athletes are enjoined to behave well because they could be role models for young people. Virtue ethics has had a long association with the field of communica­ tion studies. This association results from the fact that the earliest systematic study of the art of persuasion, called rhetoric, was developed in classical Greece, as was the early study of ethics as a field of philosophy. The three most famous early Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, all took a hand at investigating the relationship between the art of communication and ethics. First, we will see that Socrates and Plato attacked the teaching of the art of persuasion as being basically unethical. Second, we see that Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 19 Aristotle tried to rescue the teaching of persuasion (rhetoric as it was called in those days) from this charge by linking the fields of persuasion and ethics. For our purposes, the interesting point is that the field of communi­ cation has had to deal with charges concerning its ethics from the earliest days of its inception. Some things hardly ever change. The Art of Persuasion and Ethics When one tries to persuade other people, one is trying to get them to believe or to do something they would not have otherwise believed or done. Persuasion thus puts one’s own interests ahead of those of the other person, or so some would argue. Obviously, we can think of instances in which the persuasion is really for the benefit of the one being persuaded: when a doctor persuades a patient to take a particular medi­ cine; when a parent convinces a child not to experiment with dangerous drugs, or not to drink and drive; and so on. The Charge Against the Art of Persuasion In one of the earliest discussions about persuasive communication, Plato attacked the way persuasion was taught in his day, over two thousand years ago. The art of persuasion then was highly practical, aimed at win­ ning cases and votes in assemblies. A modern philosopher, such as Jürgen Habermas, whom we will meet later, would say that rhetoric represents strategic communication. The teaching was based on the observation that members of the general public, who comprised the juries and assemblies, were not always able to follow complicated arguments and proofs. The art taught, therefore, focused more on what such audiences would accept as probably true, rather than what was actually true. Plato presented his philosophical works as dialogues, that is, fictional­ ized conversations written like a play. The protagonist of these dialogues is often Plato’s revered teacher, Socrates. Plato (the real author of the dialogue) has Socrates lay out his most famous charge against the art of persuasion.3 It is no art at all, he contends, but is merely a knack for producing gratification or pleasure among the hearers, not true knowledge or edification. To clarify this charge, Socrates compares rhetoric (the art of persuasion) to cookery. When we cook food, we present it in such a way that we don’t perceive the meal as flesh of a dead animal or dead plants. Cooking makes the items more palatable, more easily digested. In the same way, the art of political persuasion consists of presenting unpalatable situations in ways that make them appear in a better light, according to Socrates. He also compares rhet­ oric to cosmetics, a skill aimed at making people appear more attractive than they might actually be. If there were a true art of rhetoric, of political 20 Theories and Perspectives persuasion, it would consist in communicating in a way that improved the listeners and made them better people. A true art of rhetoric would aim at speaking truth and instilling justice. The skill of persuasion, not based on true art, could be taught to corrupt people for their own selfish ends, since it was not grounded in ethical or moral instruction. This charge against teaching persuasion has a very contemporary ring to it. Plato is contending that persuasive communication, especially political communication, should be aimed at enhancing the well-being of the listeners, not at advancing the fortunes or purposes of the speakers themselves. But, sometimes, professionals in the fields of political cam­ paign communication, public relations, advertising, and so on, seem more concerned precisely with advancing the interests of the speakers or advo­ cates. Success, defined as winning, is everything. (Hence, we see the need for professionals in those fields to be especially attentive to the issues of ethical communication.) In line with Plato’s thinking, a distinguished American political scien­ tist, James MacGregor Burns, wrote a classic study on leadership in the twentieth century.4 In this well-known work, Burns develops the concept of what he calls a transformational leader, as representing the best kind of pol­ itical leader. The transformational leader is so called because he or she has the effect of transforming his or her followers, making them better people and bringing out the best in them. Most leaders, even the best, are often more what Burns calls transactional leaders, who lead as a result of transactions with the followers, in which both sides are looking out for their own inter­ ests. The transformational leader, on the other hand, resonates with Plato’s vision of the best leader or the true speaker. This concept is also similar to the idea of the servant leader, as developed by Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf maintains that the best leader is the one who sees himself or herself as the servant of the other members of a movement or organization.5 Aristotle: The Foundation for Communication Theory and Ethics Aristotle linked the teaching of persuasion to the fields of ethics and politics directly. Virtue or character is required for the best practice in all three areas, he argued. As we shall see, Aristotle devoted major works to the practical fields of politics, ethics, and rhetoric, and his books on these three fields have become classics. Now, we should be clear at the outset that the art of communication of most interest (perhaps of only interest) to Aristotle was communication in the public arena, literally, in the open-air agora and law courts of Athens. The highest and noblest calling for an Athenian, and by extension the citizens of similar Greek city-states, was to be a political leader and Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 21 statesman. His Art of Rhetoric was intended as a guide and instruction for such leaders, as were his works on ethics and obviously politics. Amelie Oskenberg Rorty says this concerning Aristotle’s purpose in his ethical work: “He writes the Nicomachean Ethics for those who have the traits, constitutions, and some of the habits that would enable them to become virtuous, for those capable of responsible action, and particularly for those who might be statesmen.”6 We now turn to Aristotle’s classic attempt to develop an ethical theory of communication. The Rhetoric In this book on the art of persuasion, Aristotle begins by defining the field. The proper domain of political communication, or rhetoric, as Aris­ totle called it, is not based on the logical exposition and proof associated with mathematics and science. Logic and science attempt to get at general truths that apply across all circumstances, as do mathematical proofs and sci­ entific laws. In the political arena, however, we do not deal with general truths themselves but with the application of principles to specific events and circumstances. In real life, those who debate public policy—say, in Congress or a municipal city council—do not have the advantages of the scientist in a laboratory, where he or she can take as much time as necessary and con­ trol nearly all the variables affecting the outcome of an experiment. In making political decisions, people do not have the luxury of knowing all the circumstances or factors that could affect the outcome. There is usually an urgent need to act without waiting for all the information to come in. Rhetoric is therefore concerned with developing arguments that will be persuasive to an audience under real-life conditions. Similarly, Aristotle main­ tains ethics and politics are arts in which practical reason must guide decisions rather than scientific reason. This is the major link among the three fields of study: rhetoric, politics, and ethics are concerned with making judgments under real-life constraints, requiring mature and practical reason. The distinction between logical reason and practical reason leads Aristotle to define rhetoric as the ability or faculty that allows a person to discover the best possible proof or most persuasive argument for any given case.7 The best possible proof implies that what is sought is not the final or universal proof, as one hopes to find in the natural sciences, but the most effective proof under the circumstances of ongoing public life. Therefore, in political communication, we rely on rhetorical proofs rather than logical or scientific proofs for our arguments. A person who studies rhetoric is, therefore, trying to learn a systematic procedure for developing and presenting good arguments in realistic situations to audi­ ences of typical citizens. 22 Theories and Perspectives Emphasis on Ethos, the Character of the Speaker. Although Aristotle gives most attention to logical proof in his work, he also maintains that the ethos, the character of the speaker, can be the most powerful means of sup­ port in a speech, when he says, “character is almost, so to speak, the con­ trolling factor in persuasion.”8 In order to be effective in using all forms of proof, the speaker must be able to develop arguments or syllogisms and “be observant about characters and virtues …”9 This emphasis on character and the virtues sets Aristotle’s teaching on rhetoric apart from those of the earliest speech teachers, called Sophists, and other theories of persuasion concerned mainly with strategies for achieving one’s own ends. An overarching concern with strategy suggests one tries to develop strategies concerned only with winning, winning an election, win­ ning a market share, and so on. Strategic communication here means com­ munication intended to achieve the speaker’s personal objectives whether or not these outcomes are in the best interests of the listeners or the community at large. For example, some advertising communication is aimed at selling a product often without concern for whether there is truly a need for the product. We may not really need another high-definition TV in our family room or a larger SUV on the road, but the purpose of some advertising is to use communication strategies to make us believe we do need these things. The success of the communication is measured in terms of the number of units sold rather than some larger, moral goal. Aristotle makes the same point in his work on ethics when he states that a morally weak or a bad man will, as a result of calculation, attain the goal which he has proposed to himself as the right goal to attain. He will, therefore, have deliberated correctly, but what he will get out of it will be a very bad thing.10 In other words, the communicator will have been successful in the short run, as measured in a superficial way, but in the long run, he or she will not be living the flourishing, best possible life. Aristotle intends to teach an ethical rhetoric, to be practiced by the person with good moral character, acting for the benefit of the political community. His own summary of his definition is translated as follows: “The result is that rhetoric is a certain kind of offshoot of dialectic [formal logic] and of ethical studies (which it is just to call politics).”11 We can understand more about what he means by the ethical by turning to a discussion of his most famous work on ethics, the Nicoma­ chean Ethics.12 Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 23 The Ethics At the beginning of his major work on ethics, Aristotle says that living an ethical life implies knowing the purposes of human life. The first line of the book lays out the issue: “Every art of applied science and every sys­ tematic investigation, and similarly every action and choice, seem to aim at some good; the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim.”13 His system of ethics aims at some desired end (telos in Greek, which is why this system is called teleological). This end is to live the good life, which is desired in and for its own sake. The aim of politics, as well, is to discern what is required to live well in a community. This ultimate goal, of course, is happiness. This happiness, he maintains, is understood to be the same as living well and doing well.14 Doing well, or flourishing as a human being, requires fulfill­ ing the highest functions characteristic of being human. The concept is shown in the closing scene of the popular movie, Saving Private Ryan. Years after World War II and the Allied invasion of Normandy, Ryan has returned to the cemeteries of the Americans killed in the D-Day landings and later battles. Standing before the headstone of the Captain who led his rescue party and died in the attempt, filled with emotion, Ryan implores his wife to assure him that he has “led a good life,” that he has been a good man, to earn the sacrifices of those who tried to rescue him. So the meaning of happiness as used by Aristotle may not be the same as what we mean by happiness today. A good person, therefore, is someone who excels at being a complete human being, and so the highest virtue is excellence in being fully human. Behaving ethically is the result of habits of living the best possible life. When we judge whether people have behaved in an ethical fashion, three factors must be present. First, they must know what they are doing, and not be acting rightly or wrongly because of accident, chance, or misunderstanding. For that reason, truth is not the test of the act of lying, as Sissela Bok points out in her famous book entitled Lying.15 If we honestly believed what we said was true, even though we were mistaken, our statement would not be a lie because we did not act from accurate knowledge. Second, people must choose to act in the way they do. Telling a lie requires a conscious choice to tell someone what we truly believe to be false. Third, according to Aristotle, the decision to act in a certain way is based on the character of the speaker, as he puts it, “the act must spring from a firm and unchangeable character.”16 The three elements are thus knowledge, choice, and character. The essential point about Aristotle’s system of ethics is that character is the most important defining feature of ethical conduct. 24 Theories and Perspectives The Virtues. One cultivates the character of a virtuous person by prac­ ticing the virtues, which are tendencies to act in certain ways under certain conditions. So, as there is the general concept of virtue, there are also vari­ ous individual virtues themselves. It is essential to bear in mind that for Aristotle and other classical virtue ethicists, moral virtue was equated with excellence. A virtue was a predisposition to act in a way that produced the highest excellence that a person could achieve. To illustrate what this perspective entails, we could turn to some examples of excellence in various activities. For example, for a track athlete, excellence requires speed and stamina; for that athlete, these two attributes are virtues in that they allow him or her to achieve the highest level of excellence in that sport. Aristotle is concerned with excellence in general for human beings, and thus he asks what are the attributes required to allow a person to achieve the highest level of excellence as a human being, that is, in living the best possible life. As the sprinter requires speed and stamina, the human being in general requires the general excellences or virtues of character. This understanding of the meaning of virtue is different from our everyday use of this term today, so we need to be sure that this concept of a virtue as excellence is explicit before going into the list of the virtues proposed by Aristotle. Aristotle’s belief that a virtue allows a person to achieve excellence explains his notion that a virtue is a mean (average) between two extremes. For example, in athletics again, a basketball player must be aggressive and competitive to be successful, but if the player is too aggres­ sive he will not achieve excellence. Too much aggressiveness will lead the athlete to break rules, foul opponents too much, and lose effectiveness. So, the successful player exhibits just the right amount of aggressiveness, a mean between unnecessary roughness and insufficient competitiveness. This is the idea behind Aristotle’s notion that a virtue is a mean between two extremes. We can also think of the virtue as the peak between two val­ leys, which are the extremes on either side. The virtues can be further explained by looking at the list proposed by Aristotle, which also gives us a picture of what would have been considered excellence among the classical Greeks of his day and can be compared to the virtues of Benjamin Franklin and others of our own day. The set of virtues may be different in different times and under different circumstances, as we shall see. These, then, are virtues that would have been seen as leading to excellence in the classical world of Athens: ■ Courage, which is the mean between rashness and foolhardiness, on one extreme, and timidity or cowardice, on the other. ■ Self-control, referring to mastery of self, that is, control of one’s pas­ sions. The extremes on either side would be self-indulgence and Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 25 extreme asceticism or self-denial. In certain religions, asceticism or self-denial are seen as virtues, so this indicates how the list of virtues may differ from time to time and place to place. ■ Generosity, between the extremes of extravagance and stinginess. In some cultures, generosity in hospitality is the mark of the highest excellence. Chinua Achebe, in his great novel, Things Fall Apart, describes how his protagonist shows himself to be a great man by the magnificence of the feast he presents to his guests as he prepares to return to his own home after a period of exile. ■ Magnificence, a term or concept which is hard to translate into modern English. Aristotle seemed to intend to refer to people who today we would say are very public-spirited and contribute to worthy causes. The extremes would be vulgarity (giving too ostenta­ tiously) and being uncharitable. ■ High-mindedness, which Aristotle explains as appropriate to one’s greatness. Today, we might refer to this virtue as a sense of honor. The extremes on either side are pettiness, when we make too much of every slight, and vanity. ■ An appropriate desire to achieve or excel. Aristotle leaves this virtue unnamed, allowing that it is possible we do not have a word for every virtue. The extremes on either side of this attribute would be overly ambitious and lack of all ambition. ■ Gentleness, again a concept for which we lack a good match in English. Aristotle seems to have in mind the sort of gentle used in referring to an English gentleman. The person remains unruffled and does not get too emotional under stress. The extremes would be short-tempered or easily angered, on the one hand, and apath­ etic, on the other. ■ Friendliness, appropriate to the relationship one has with another person. The extremes are obsequiousness, on one side, and grouchi­ ness, on the other. Aristotle devotes a great deal of attention to friendship in the latter part of his book on ethics, stressing that friendship is the conceptual basis for political states. ■ Truthfulness, especially in regard to oneself and one’s accomplish­ ments. The idea here is clarified by thinking of the mean between being boastful and being self-deprecating. In the discussion of this virtue, however, it is clear that Aristotle also has in mind truth-telling in the general sense of the term. ■ Wittiness or tact. The person is able to participate in a conversation without resorting to buffoonery (too much effort at being witty or funny) or to boorishness (being a boring companion). ■ Ability to feel shame, which remains an unnamed virtue between too much shame and shamelessness, or brazenness. Although a person of good character is unlikely to do something that would 26 Theories and Perspectives bring shame on himself or herself, the person should still have the capability of feeling shame. ■ Sense of justice, honesty, or righteousness in dealings with others. In addition, a truly virtuous person also possesses the fundamental char­ acteristic of sound practical reason, or what Aristotle called phronesis, which through its Latin translation gives us our word, prudence. Aristotle goes to great lengths to explain the necessity for and characteristics of this practical wisdom. Having the virtues allows us to see what the goals should be, but it requires practical wisdom to know how to bring about the goals and how to act virtuously in various specific circumstances. Some of the classical virtues given by Aristotle may seem at odds with what we today might consider to be virtues. For example, we may not be sure of high-mindedness or magnificence or wittiness as virtues of the same level of importance as truthfulness or justice. In the tradition of Western civilization, the most obvious competing traditions concerning the virtues are religious ones, as found in Judaism and Christianity. We have noted earlier that the principles of Confucianism extol especially the virtuous behavior of the truly noble person as a guide to right living. And, the Dao de Jing, attributed to the sage Lao-tze, prescribes wu-wei, the art of minimal action so that the best ruler appears to call out the best behavior of the people by seeming to do nothing while exhibiting the highest character, so that the people will say they did it all themselves. The Christian virtues as set forth in New Testament “The Sermon on the Mount” include meekness, the hunger for righteousness, mercifulness, purity of heart, and forgiveness.17 Such virtues seem to conflict with those espoused by Aristotle, who gives no mention of such traits as meek­ ness, mercy, or forgiveness. High-mindedness and a desire to excel, two of Aristotle’s virtues, also seem to contrast with Christian virtues. Still, clearly, parts of the message in the New Testament are consist­ ent with what we have been calling virtue ethics. Specifically, when the “Scribes and Pharisees” try to catch out Jesus in breaking some point of the Jewish Law by healing people (doing work) on the Sabbath or con­ sorting with tax collectors or questionable women, he replies that strict enforcement of those rules is at odds with the greater virtues, requiring one to love others and to show compassion for them. One of the most famous examples of relying on wisdom and compassion in place of strict adherence to rules is the case of the woman accused of adultery brought before Jesus to be stoned (recounted in the Gospel of John, Chapter 8). The virtues of compassion and forgiveness trump the strict interpretation of the law calling for the stoning of the woman. As noted earlier, when people rely on the formula WWJD, they are applying a form of virtue ethics, asking what the virtuous person would do in their present circumstances. Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 27 Roman Developments in the Rhetorical and Ethical Tradition The culture and education of classical Greece were passed on to Rome. The two most famous theorists of the art of rhetoric in Rome were Cicero, a contemporary of Julius Caesar in the first century BCE, and the lawyer turned teacher, Quintilian, in the century after. Cicero, in his work on rhetoric, upheld a highly ethical vision of the best form of rhetoric. For example, in one of his early books on rhetoric, Cicero recognized that rhetoric was sometimes used by unworthy speakers to attain gain, but the answer to that problem was for good men to study rhetoric in order to combat such misuse of communication skills. Specifically, Cicero maintains: Therefore, in my opinion at least, men ought none the less to devote them­ selves to the study of eloquence although some misuse it both in private and in public affairs. And they should study it the more earnestly in order that evil men may not obtain great power to the detriment of good citizens …18 And, Quintilian, one of the most famous early teachers of the art of rhet­ oric, maintained rhetoric aimed to produce “The good man, speaking well,” with emphasis on the virtue of the speaker. In sum, the major authorities on the teaching of classical rhetoric, the art of persuasion, emphasized the importance of ethics in communication. The issues were not all that different from the kinds of issues students of communication face today. Are the techniques of effective communication essentially tools that can be used for any cause, or do students of communi­ cation have a special responsibility to consider the ethical choices they reveal in their communications and interactions with others? If the ethical communicator is the good person communicating well, the aim of the communicator must be to assure the best outcomes for the listen­ ers. In doing so, the communicator will exhibit the virtues of good character. Contemporary Virtue Ethics We have considered the classical background of virtue ethics, which had its beginnings with the philosophy of Aristotle and was grounded in the public arts of rhetoric, ethics, and politics. Virtue ethics can be compared with the other major ethical systems of utilitarianism and the universal­ ism of Kant, which are discussed in subsequent chapters.19 The philoso­ pher Rosalinde Hursthouse explains the distinctions among these three systems in the following way. The universal system of ethics associated 28 Theories and Perspectives with Kant is based on the premise that ethical behavior follows a moral rule or principle that is given to us by one of the following: divine author­ ity or natural law or the dictates of reason. Utilitarianism follows the premise that an act is ethical if it promotes the most happiness for the maximum number of people. In virtue ethics, however, an action is ethical if it is what a virtuous person would do under the given circumstances with the understanding that a virtuous person is one who exhibits the virtues.20 A behavior is right or ethical because of the character of the person performing it. A person is not virtuous or ethical because they perform certain right actions, but it is the other way around. The action is virtuous because of the nature of the person who performs it.21 Ethics of Care An impetus for this new interest in virtue ethics lies in the importance of feminist ethics, especially as derived from the work of the philosopher of education and ethics, Nel Noddings, in her Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education,22 and Noddings, however, does try to distin­ guish her meaning for an ethics of care from some modern interpretations of virtue ethics as character education. The difference she sees is that an ethics of care does not concern itself with enumerating specific virtues to be cultivated but a certain kind of caring relationship.23 She further clari­ fies this distinction when she points out that caring is a character trait and basically a virtue, but the impetus for caring must lie in the relation­ ship with the other person, the caring itself, not in the cultivation of the virtue itself.24 The emphasis is on the relationship rather than the abstract virtue. In that sense, the ethics of care is close to the system of dialogic ethics discussed in Chapter 5. We will take up more detailed discussion of feminist ethics at a later point, but there is a connection with virtue ethics. In a system based on caring for individuals, a person acts for the best interests of a particular person rather than following a rules-based approach to ethical decision making. If that person has a special relationship to you, as a mother or husband or lover, your ethical obligations are different toward that person than to someone who does not enjoy the same kind of relationship with you. Christian ethics, as illustrated by Jesus’ view that love takes prece­ dence over the law and rules, are similar to this kind of thinking. In other standard systems of ethics, one is supposed to be person-neutral, that is, one should not be swayed to act in a partial way to benefit another because of special relationships. But in the ethics of care, because of the virtues of caring, love, or friendship, it is ethical to be partial to individ­ uals in this way. The virtues of being a parent or a friend or a lover require that we treat the loved one or the friend in a special way. Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 29 This is not to say that we do not have moral obligations to humanity in general and to others who are personally distant from us. Humanitar­ ian concerns are not ruled out, but one seeks a realistic balance between caring for known individuals and concern for all people. Practical wisdom is called for in figuring out how to achieve this kind of balancing. The dif­ ficulty of reconciling partiality for loved ones, on the one hand, with humanitarian concern for all human beings, on the other, has been a major contemporary criticism of virtue ethics. Martha Nussbaum’s Ethic of Human Capabilities How shall we identify the virtues that represent the best life for people in today’s world? The approach of virtue ethics emphasizes that the virtues are those attributes or functions that allow one to live the fullest, most flourishing life. Regardless of differences represented by different cultural and historical contexts, Martha Nussbaum maintains that there are uni­ versal human capabilities desired by all people across all regions and cul­ tures. For example, being able to live out a life of normal length, one worth living would be such a universal.25 At another point, she argues, Everyone has some attitude and behavior toward her own death; toward her bodily appetites and their management; toward her property and its use; toward the distribution of social goods; toward telling the truth; toward being kindly or not kindly to others; toward cultivating or not cultivating a sense of play and delight; and so on.26 Nussbaum’s list implies that there are human goods or concerns that are found just about everywhere, regardless of cultural differences. Disease and premature death are seen as universal negatives and therefore virtues that uphold health for all people could be seen as universal. Other virtues seen as universal based on her categories include truthfulness, kindliness toward others, and respect for others’ rights to property, food, and well-being. The Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, adopted by the United Nations after World War II, similarly suggests that there are some universal moral or eth­ ical principles. By implication these kinds of principles should provide the foundation for the virtues of the good life. We will have more to say about universal ethical principles in Chapter 3. For the purposes of public policy, Nussbaum implies, there are nearly universal ethical principles derived from the virtues that are related to each of these human needs or desired capabilities. The ethical action is the one that the person applying sound practical reason believes will best allow people to realize these capabilities. One cannot lay down laws and rules in advance that will cover all circumstances, so one must bear in mind the needs for a flourishing life and to act in a way intended to realize such a life. 30 Theories and Perspectives Implications for Communication Ethics What does virtue ethics suggest for our communication behaviors? First, it should be clear that Aristotle viewed the art of persuasive communication, rhetoric, as one of the branches of the practical arts that included ethics as well as politics. These three arts required the application of practical wisdom, informed by good character, to make ethical decisions about circumstances encountered in the real world. Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was not divorced from ethics, as some early practitioners had implied. Persuasion does not rely simply on a set of techniques that could be applied in any situation for any end. Ethos, the character of the speaker, remained one of the most important means of persuasion avail­ able to a communicator. Aristotle thus advocated a philosophical rhetoric that went beyond mere technique. The emphasis on the good character of the speaker continued in the traditions of Roman rhetoric, as evidenced by Cicero and Quintilian. If a speaker or communicator in any circum­ stance loses his or her credibility as a person of good character, he or she will lose effectiveness in future interactions. Second, we should be able to derive specific ethical principles for communication from the virtues and from the concept of the good person speaking well. Let’s consider for illustration the virtue of courage. Courage as a Virtue in Ethical Communication Courage can be the relevant virtue when we need to speak up and challenge an authority, especially when such speaking out places us in some jeopardy. For example, in the aftermath of the events of 9/11 a Federal Bureau of Inves­ tigation (FBI) whistle-blower named Coleen Rowley became well known for a scathing letter she had written to higher-ups in the Bureau, accusing them of hindering efforts to investigate one of the potential hijackers being held in Minneapolis. Rowley exhibited the virtue of courage in speaking out, putting herself at risk. The notoriety of the circumstances may have allowed her to escape some of the harsh consequences that often befall organizational whistle-blowers. Nonetheless, her actions at the time required great courage. Edward Snowden, a contract employee for the National Security Administration (NSA), represents another case. He discovered the vast US government surveillance of Americans’ phone and Internet communica­ tions. When he leaked huge amounts of data disclosing this surveillance to journalists for The Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post, he was charged with criminal espionage against US security and forced to live in exile in Russia to avoid prosecution. The issue became whether he could have communicated what he saw as the illegal nature of the program through in-house channels, on the one hand, or whether it was necessary Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 31 to steal the data and leak it through clandestine channels. Snowden and his supporters believe his actions constituted courageous speech, while others have disagreed.27 The French philosopher, Michel Foucault, has analyzed this concept of courageous speech in a series of lectures on Fearless Speech, under the classical Greek concept of parrhesia.28 The notion of fearless speech sums up the idea of courageous speech, in that the person speaks frankly, tell­ ing the whole truth, which in some way criticizes a person who has some authority or power over the speaker. One who practices such fearless speech assumes this risk because the person feels that he or she has an obligation to speak frankly and truthfully under the circumstances. This is not easy, as most people are understandably reluctant to point out their superiors’ shortcomings. In religious traditions, the characteristic of fearless speech is associ­ ated with prophetic communication. In the Old Testament tradition, the most striking example may be the case of Nathan, who admonished King David for wrongdoing. David caught sight of a beautiful young woman bathing while he was walking about the roof of his palace. He sent to find out the identity of the woman and to whom she was married. When he discovered that her husband was Uriah, a Hittite soldier in David’s army, he arranged to have him placed in a battle and then had the other sol­ diers suddenly desert him so that he was caught and killed by the enemy. As soon as the period for mourning was over, David immediately sent for the widow and married her. Nathan went to the King to ask for his advice on a matter involving two men. One was rich, and one was poor. The rich man naturally had many flocks of sheep and goats, while the poor man had only one lamb, but he loved it very much. When a traveler visited the rich man, instead of taking one of his many lambs to feed the stranger, as required by hospitality, he seized the poor man’s lamb and slaughtered it. David was angered and charged that the rich man should be punished and be made to compensate the poor man. At this point, Nathan stood up and pointed at the King, saying, “Thou art the man!” People rationalize their fear of criticizing authority by saying that they must maintain their access and usefulness in order to have any effect at all. They say, in other words, that is “how the game is played.” Irving Janis has written extensively about what he calls Groupthink, which devel­ ops out of the desire to go along with the decisions of popular leaders or groups.29 The rationalization is that if people become known as boatrockers, they will lose any effectiveness they might have had with the leader or with the group. The person who displays this courage in communicating may not always succeed, as was the case with the Morton Thiokol engineer, Roger Boisjoly, who tried to convince NASA not to launch the Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986. The Challenger is remembered as one of two fatal 32 Theories and Perspectives accidents involving NASA’s space shuttle. It was especially noteworthy because of the significance attached to the presence on the ship of the “First Teacher in Space,” Christa McCauliffe. As thousands watched, includ­ ing schoolchildren glued to classroom monitors, the craft exploded just 73 seconds into the flight. Another engineer who tried to stop the disastrous launch was Robert Ebeling, who died in March of 2016. Ebeling reportedly carried a burden of guilt for the last thirty years of his life, feeling that he should have convinced NASA superiors to halt the Challenger launch. He was not successful, with the tragic results of the explosion after launch the next day, but he and Boisjoly did speak up and did the ethical thing in so doing. The pivotal point occurs for the speaker when something is at stake, when the speaker knowingly takes a risk but feels obligated to do so. Courage, however, as a virtue of communication, must be balanced with other communication virtues as well. The other virtues of self-control, magnanimity, or friendship may require that one temper frankness in order to enact these virtues as well. And, other classical authors, such as Plato and Isocrates, claim too much parrhesia, unbridled free speech, by demagogues and others can lead to more harm than good for the state or society. Aristotle reminds us that sound, practical wisdom and sound character must always be the guide in these situations. So, an ethic of caring for persons close to one, such as family and friends, must temper one’s communication. We can further explore the implications of virtue ethics for commu­ nication by considering a case study, taken from the contemporary world of business. CASE STUDY: MONEY AND FRIENDSHIP Shawn and Kevin, two young men in their mid-twenties, have been close friends since they met during their college years. They share numerous similar interests and greatly enjoy each other’s company. Kevin gratefully acknowledges to himself that Shawn has been a friend in every respect that counts. Shawn has listened patiently and responded empathetically on the many occasions Kevin sought him out to talk about major issues in his life concerning, for example, school plans, job opportunities, or romantic matters. Shawn has always been there when Kevin needed encouragement. He has provided assistance unselfishly in large and small matters, such as, loaning Kevin his car when Kevin’s broke down, several times helping Kevin move his belongings from one apartment to another, and putting up with Kevin’s relatives from out of town when Kevin didn’t have room for them in his apartment. This is not to say, however, that the friendship has been one-sided in any way. Kevin has provided similar kinds of support, encouragement, and assistance to Shawn over the years. Kevin does not view all the things he and Shawn have done Character in Communication and Virtue Ethics 33 for one another as at all like a sequence of quid pro quos, but instead (although Kevin has never consciously stated the point in this way to himself), he views the deep reciprocity between Shawn and himself as flowing organically from the nature of the friendship. Shawn, who has written a number of short stories and poems, has been working on his novel for the past two years. Kevin is well aware of Shawn’s first major literary project and fully supports it, in the sense of considering it to be a highly worthwhile thing for Shawn to do. Several weeks ago, Shawn learned of a small house in a quiet semi-rural outer suburban area. He believes the house would provide the ideal working environment for him. Recently, Shawn has asked Kevin to loan him $5,000 for the down payment on the house. The request takes Kevin by surprise. Over the years of their friendship, neither Kevin nor Shawn has asked the other for a loan until now. Monetary affairs have not played a significant role in their rela­ tionship, either directly or indirectly. Kevin and Shawn both grew up in families in which discussion of personal financial issues outside of the family were disapproved of strongly. For this reason, both Kevin and Shawn seldom, if ever, discuss their personal finances with each other. Kevin, who works as a project manager for a large engineering firm, can afford to loan the money to Shawn. He (Kevin) is not sure, however, exactly how Shawn plans to repay the loan on his salary as a manager of a small local bookstore. Kevin feels acutely uncomfortable about how to discuss this matter with Shawn. QUESTION...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Ethical decisions are essential in today’s complex media world to guarantee
dissemination's ethical nature and sociability. Media ethics refers to considering how
media content and issues affect audiences, individuals, and society in general. Neher
(2020) outlines media professionals’ communication principles based on character,
duties, consequences and relationships. Initially, virtue characterisation is necessary.
The media practitioners must pursue truthfulness, fairness and cou...

Related Tags