1.2: Ethical Persuasion

Learning Objectives

1. Apply the frameworks, such as the Ethics Pyramid and TARES test, to analyze and make ethical decisions in public speaking situations.
2. Integrate principles from the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication into your speaking and listening practices, emphasizing truthfulness, respect, and responsibility.
3. Avoid common plagiarism traps by accurately citing sources and distinguishing between your own ideas and those of others in your speeches.
4. Explain the concept of free speech, including its constitutional protections and its practical limitations in the context of public discourse.
5. Identify and condemn unethical communication practices such as distortion, hate speech, and coercion, and understand your responsibility for the consequences of your persuasive messages.

The Importance of Character

One of Aristotle's most famous quotes about persuasion is that "Character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion." Aristotle understood that "we believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided."

Around 400 years later, the Roman rhetorician Quintilian defined rhetoric as "a good man speaking well."

What does it mean to be a good person or a person of good character in the context of persuasion? On its face, ethical persuasion means to put the interest of one's audience first. Persuasion should not occur as a result of dishonesty, force, coercion, propaganda, bribery, bias, or manipulation.

Navigating Moral Choices in Public Speaking

Every act of public speaking, whether as a speaker or a listener, inherently involves ethical decisions. From questions about using questionable evidence to our willingness to engage with dissenting views, ethical dilemmas are pervasive. Understanding public speaking ethics requires navigating these choices responsibly.

The word "ethics" itself can hold diverse meanings. In public speaking, it refers to the moral principles that guide our communication behaviors and choices. A useful framework for examining these choices is the Ethics Pyramid, which considers Intent, Means, and Ends (Tilley).

The Ethics Pyramid

1. Intent: Ethical communication begins with ethical intentions. An ethical speaker intends to be truthful and open, while an ethical listener intends to be open-minded. Assessing intent can involve consulting others for consensus on a behavior's ethicality or referring to established codes of ethics. It's crucial to acknowledge that unethical behavior can occur unintentionally (e.g., accidental plagiarism), raising questions about culpability.
2. Means: These are the tools or behaviors employed to achieve a desired outcome. For any given situation, a range of behavioral choices exist, some ethical, some unethical. For example, persuading a friend to help by offering reciprocity is ethical, while threatening them is not, even if both achieve the same result. The means used significantly impact the overall ethicality of the persuasive act.
3. Ends: These are the desired outcomes or results of communication. Ends can be good or bad, and their ethicality often depends on who benefits and who is potentially harmed. A good outcome for the speaker might be detrimental to the audience, or vice versa, necessitating careful consideration of both source and receiver consequences.

Ultimately, understanding ethics requires balancing all three parts of the ethical pyramid. When unsure about a behavior's ethicality, consider: Is there general consensus that it's ethical? Does it adhere to relevant codes of ethics? Would you be comfortable if the outcomes were reversed and applied to you? This framework, rooted in ancient philosophical discussions, provides a guide for responsible communication.

TARES Test

Sherry Baker and David L. Martinson developed a tool called the TARES test, which seeks to establish robust principles for ethics and a more ethical approach to persuasion, particularly commercial persuasion. This test has five principles: truthfulness, authenticity, respect, equity, and social responsibility.

• Truthfulness
  • Is this communication factually accurate and true? Does it lead people to believe what I myself do not believe?
  • Has this appeal downplayed relevant evidence?
• Authenticity
  • Does this action compromise my integrity?
  • Do I feel good about being involved in this action?
  • Do I truly think and believe my audience will benefit?
• Respect
  • Is the appeal made to others as rational, self-determining human beings?
  • Does this action promote self-interest at the unfair expense of or to the detriment of my audience?
• Equity
  • Am I doing to others what I would not want done to me or to people I care about?
  • Does my audience know they are being persuaded rather than informed?
• Social Responsibility
  • Does this action take responsibility to promote and create the kind of world and society in which persuaders themselves would like to live with their families and loved ones?
  • Have I unfairly stereotyped society’s constituent groups in my persuasive message?

We will close this chapter with a brief paraphrase of Aristotle's Rhetoric from political scientist Mary P. Nichols:

"If a rhetorician is to be persuasive, he must show that his advice is advantageous to his audience, that what he is praising is noble, or that he has justice on his side. In such cases, his premises, his conclusions, and his examples all reveal his character" (Nichols 665).

The National Communication Association Credo for Ethical Communication

Adopted in 1999, the National Communication Association's (NCA) Credo for Ethical Communication provides a foundational set of principles for ethical human communication. It asserts that ethical communication is vital for responsible thinking, decision-making, and fostering relationships, enhancing human worth through truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, integrity, and respect. Unethical communication, conversely, threatens societal well-being.

Applying the NCA Credo to public speaking illuminates specific ethical obligations for speakers and listeners:

• Truthfulness, Accuracy, Honesty, and Reason: Speakers must prioritize information honesty. This means avoiding outright lies, exaggeration, distortion, or the omission of facts that contradict their message. Credibility is built through reason and logical arguments supported by facts. Crucially, ethical speakers always cite their sources, whether from interviews, articles, or research. Plagiarism, the act of claiming someone else's words or ideas as your own, is a severe ethical breach (from the Latin "kidnapper"). Common plagiarism traps include: 1) failing to credit direct quotations, 2) paraphrasing without attributing the original source. 3) re-citing secondary sources instead of tracing and citing the original research (which risks spreading misinformation and is intellectually dishonest). Citing sources is essential for academic integrity, maintaining audience credibility, and avoiding severe consequences.
• Freedom of Expression, Diversity of Perspective, and Tolerance of Dissent: A civil society thrives on the free exchange of diverse viewpoints and the acceptance of dissent. Ethical communicators, as both speakers and listeners, should seek out a range of perspectives to become fully informed and make responsible decisions. Dissent, though uncomfortable, is vital for democratic functioning; therefore, listeners must be receptive to it, regardless of personal disagreement.
• Understanding and Respecting Other Communicators: Ethical listeners strive to understand a speaker's message before evaluating or responding. This means avoiding prejudgment based on appearance, mannerisms, or secondhand information. Speakers, similarly, have an ethical obligation to fairly research and evaluate counterarguments, even those opposing their position.
• Access to Communication Resources and Opportunities: Ethical communication professionals bear a responsibility to provide resources and opportunities that enable others to develop better communication skills.
• Communication Climates of Caring and Mutual Understanding: Speakers should approach audiences with genuine care and a desire for mutual understanding. This involves conducting thorough audience analysis and being transparent about intentions. Speakers with hidden agendas risk alienating and disrespecting their audience.
• Condemning Degrading Communication: This principle unequivocally rejects communication that demeans individuals or humanity. This includes distortion (purposefully twisting information), intimidation, coercion, violence, intolerance, and hate speech (e.g., ageist, heterosexist, racist, sexist language). Listeners must critically discern such harmful messages, even when disguised with mild-sounding terms.
• Courageous Expression of Personal Convictions: Ethical communicators are encouraged to bravely express their beliefs in pursuit of fairness and justice, contributing to social change movements.
• Sharing Information While Respecting Privacy and Confidentiality: Speakers must clearly distinguish between facts and personal opinions. They also have an obligation to respect others' privacy and confidentiality, seeking permission before using sensitive or non-public information. This principle can carry significant legal implications in professional contexts.
• Accepting Responsibility for Short- and Long-Term Consequences: This is perhaps the most crucial principle. In a globally connected world, a speaker must accept responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their message, both immediate and long-term. While not always directly culpable for extreme listener actions, speakers have an ethical duty to reflect on how their speech could potentially lead to harmful outcomes and to understand the implications of the actions they advocate.

Practicing ethical public speaking is not merely about avoiding pitfalls but actively cultivating habits of truthfulness, respect, responsibility, and mindful influence.

The Right to Free Speech

A cornerstone of ethical public communication, particularly in democratic societies, is free speech. Defined as "the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations" (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law), free speech is enshrined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Its inclusion as the first of the Bill of Rights highlights its foundational importance, stemming from historical struggles against religious persecution and government restrictions on personal freedoms. This right is critical for public speakers, as their purpose is to express information and ideas. Equally, for audiences, free speech enables exposure to diverse perspectives, fostering more informed decision-making.

Furthermore, free speech underpins other fundamental First Amendment freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, allowing individuals to gather and voice concerns or protest. However, it's crucial to understand that free speech is not absolute. It does not protect speech that is likely to incite violence or other illegal acts. For instance, the Supreme Court's Morse et al. v. Frederick (2007) decision affirmed a school principal's right to suspend a student for advocating illegal behavior, demonstrating a limit to free speech protection.

The precise meaning and limits of free speech are continually debated by politicians, judges, and the public. As citizens and ethical communicators, being aware of both the protections and the boundaries of free speech is essential for engaging in articulate discourse and for critically evaluating messages, especially on controversial topics.

Exercises

1. Can you think of a time when you intended to have a “good” end and employed “good” means, but you ended up accomplishing a “bad” end? Why do you think our ends are not always in line with our intentions?
2. Ursula is developing a speech on the importance of organ donation. She has found lots of impressive statistics in her research but feels she needs an interesting story to really make an impression on her audience and persuade them to become organ donors. Ursula can’t find a true story she really likes, so she takes elements of several stories and pieces them together into a single story. Her speech is a huge success and six of her classmates sign up to be organ donors immediately after her presentation. How do we decide whether Ursula’s behavior is ethical?
3. Robert is preparing a speech about legalizing marijuana use in the United States. He knows that his roommate wrote a paper on the topic last semester and asks his roommate about the paper in an attempt to gather information. During his speech, Robert orally cites his roommate by name as a source of his information but does not report that the source is his roommate, whose experience is based on writing a paper. In what ways does Robert’s behavior violate the guidelines set out in the NCA Credo
   for Ethical Communication?

References

Freedom of speech. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s dictionary of law.

National Archives and Records Administration. (2011). Bill of rights transcription.

Nichols, Mary P. "Aristotle's defense of rhetoric." The Journal of Politics 49.3 (1987): 657-677.

Supreme Court of the United States. (2007). Syllabus: Morse et al. v. Frederick. No. 06–278. Argued March 19, 2007–Decided June 25, 2007.

Tilley, E. (2005). The ethics pyramid: Making ethics unavoidable in the public relations process. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20, 305–320.

Image Attributions

Right or wrong sign. Image by Tumisu from Pixabay