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