Ethics and Persuasion

(Source: Google Images)

People find themselves in persuasive situations almost every day. Watching television commercials, reading through a newspaper, or listening to somebody speak about a public issue are just a few examples of persuasion. Some public speakers, advertisers, and journalists sometimes avoid presenting the whole truth to the audience if they have a certain bias, or in order to protect the company’s reputation, or if they have something to gain by presenting only partial truth. Distorting the facts on purpose, or concealing important information is considered unethical because such actions are designed to misinform, or deceive the public. Additionally, distorting or misrepresenting information would be considered unethical both by Kant’s theory of ethics and by the rule utilitarian ethical theory.

Unethical Persuasion and Propaganda

Purposefully distorting the facts is considered unethical because falsifying or exaggerating information misrepresents the truth. Misrepresentation of true facts is usually used in propaganda. Messina (2006) defines propaganda as “control, deception and disregard for truth which is deployed (or not) only as a means to achieve ends. And the ends serve the propagandist’s interests” (Defining Propaganda, para. 2). When the speaker is only concerned about his or her interest in the matter, he or she will distort the information to reflect those interests.
     

Propaganda is often used in election campaigns in order to influence the voters to vote for a particular candidate. The propagandists not only use television commercials to inaccurately portray the opponent’s position, but also push polls. A push poll is a disguised propaganda. Propagandists who use push polls as their tool, refer to this tactic as a “political survey” conducted over the phone that is specifically designed, according to Lorentzen (2006) “to attack another candidate, often with information containing little or no factual base” (para. 5). These so-called “surveys” are designed to slander the opponent and to influence voters not to vote for him or her. This tactic is unethical because the opponent is not present to correct the distorted information and to defend his or her position. Another reason why this tactic is unethical is because the voters often do not realize that they are being manipulated.

Kant's Ethics and Persuasion

(Immanuel Kant. Source: Google Images)

The eighteenth century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), would also condemn the practice of push polling as unethical. According to Kant’s theory of “categorical imperative,” (cited in Messina, 2007), people should “act so that [they] treat humanity . . . always as an end and never as a means only” (Defining Ethical Persuasion, para. 5). According to this theory, then, it would be morally wrong for an individual to use another person or people to reach his or her own goals. Moreover, Kant maintained, that as reasonable beings, people deserve to be correctly and adequately informed about an issue (Messina, 2007, Defining Ethical Persuasion, para.5). 

The drawback in Kant’s theory is that the moral principles, which people have to adhere to, such as “do not lie” and “do not steal,” must be absolute. For example, it would always be wrong to lie and to steal in all of the circumstances. This would not work in the real world, as people encounter situations, where telling only the truth would cost somebody’s life as in the example involving German soldiers and Jewish families during the World War II (Messina, 2007). Realizing that adhering to absolute norms is impossible, other ethical standards have to be employed to govern moral principles of what conducts can be considered either ethical or unethical in persuasive situations. Rule utilitarianism, as another theory of ethics, provides ethical standards that can be used in modern persuasion.

Rule Utilitarianism and Persuasion

     
Unlike Kant’s theory of absolute moral principles, rule utilitarianism provides practical ethical principles that can be applied to any persuasion situation. According to Messina (2007), rule utilitarianism “allows ascertainably justifiable exceptions at extremes where harm overrides strict application of the rule” (A Utilitarian Approach, para. 15). These exceptions do not mean that lying should be permitted. The exceptions refer only to those situations when lying can save somebody’s life, or produce more good than harm. According to this theory, as Messina (2007) writes, people should “Act so that [they] treat humanity always as an end and never as a means, unless justifiably outweighed by ascertainable good that would accrue or harm averted” (Respect, para. 5). According to this principle, breaking an established universal rule like lying or stealing is permitted only in extreme circumstances. For example, stealing a weapon from a person who is planning a murder would be justified, since it would save human lives.

Rule utilitarianism, although providing exceptions to absolute norms, would also agree with Kant’s theory that misrepresenting information, and treating a person as a means to reach one’s own goals is unethical. For example, people who conduct push poll propaganda tell voters what to think and what to do, without letting the voters think and make their own reasonable and autonomous judgments. Using voters as a means to win votes for their candidate, propagandists undermine certain ethical standards, such as “truthfulness,” “veracity,” “honesty,” “fairness,” and “respect” (Messina, 2007). According to Palmer (1999), rule utilitarianism “is concerned” about what makes one’s action morally “right or wrong” (p. 33). Persuaders, who purposefully misinform people and use them for their own goals, demonstrate their unethical behavior by distorting facts or by not presenting complete information. Such persuasion practice can be referred to as purposeful deception and manipulation, and is considered morally wrong. Ethical persuasion, on the other hand, is considered morally right, because persuaders use verifiable information, and take the audience’s ability to make decisions into consideration.

The Importance of Ethical Persuasion

Ethical persuasion practices increase the speaker’s credibility and respect, while demonstrating his or her high ethical standards. Cameron, Wilcox, Reber, and Shin (2008) write that, “A person’s conduct is measured not only against his or her conscience but also against some norm of acceptability that has been determined by society, professional groups, or even a person’s employer” (p. 203). Thus, the overall concept of ethics can refer to personal, social, and professional ethical standards.

If a person is willing to be ethical in his or her private life, then he or she will also adhere to ethical standards both in social and professional environments. Messina (2007) defined ethical persuasion as “An attempt through communication to influence knowledge, attitude or behavior of an audience through presentation of a view that addresses and allows the audience to make voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgments (Defining Ethical Persuasion, para. 2). Providing adequate information and supporting evidence increases the speaker’s credibility. Thus, informing the audience, and providing people with an opportunity to make their own judgments constitutes ethical practice of persuasion.

Ethical persuasion is based on trust, adequate information, and the ability of the persuaded people to make their own autonomous judgments. Propaganda, on the other hand, is designed to misinform and manipulate others. Both Kant’s ethical theory and the rule utilitarian theory would regard the practice of propaganda as unethical, because propagandists treat the persuaded audience as tools to reach their own goals, and manipulate them to make a choices and judgments in favor of the propaganda. The theory of rule utilitarian ethics provides reasonable ethical standards for persuaders to use when making good moral and ethical decisions and judgments.
     
           

       References:

Cameron, G.T., Wilcox, D.L., Reber, B.H., & Shin, J.H. (2008). Public relations today:
     Managing competition and conflict. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Publishing.
Lorentzen, L.E. (2006, October 16). Disguised as a poll, it pushed poison; Compass: Points
     of view from the community. Anchorage Daily News, p. B4. Retrieved December 4,
     2011, from ProQuest student database. (Document ID: 1146212561).
Messina, A. (2007). Public Relations, the public interest and persuasion: An ethical
     approach. Journal of Communication Management, 11(1), 29. Retrieved December 3,
     2011, from ProQuest student database. (Document ID: 1210421519).
Palmer, D. E. (1999). On the viability of a rule utilitarianism. Journal of Value Inquiry,
     33(1), p. 31. Retrieved December 5, 2011, from ProQuest student database. (Document
     ID: 395722051).