Communication- Argumentation and Persuasion
uthej19
COM470_Week9_Tuesday_Fall2020v2.pptxCOM 470: Argumentation and Persuasion
Week 9, Tuesday, 10/20
Agenda
Discuss ethics in persuasion and ethical communication
Reminders:
Final paper due 11/12
Ethics in Persuasion
What do you think about the conversation between Calvin and Hobbes?
How would you explain ethics in persuasion?
What are Ethics?
Ethical issues focus on value judgments concerning degrees of right and wrong, and goodness and badness, in human conduct.
“As receivers and senders of persuasion, we have the responsibility to uphold appropriate ethical standards for persuasion, to encourage freedom of inquiry and expression, and to promote public debate as crucial to democratic decision making.” (Johannesen, 2002)
Ethical Perspectives
Religious Perspective – ethics based on the teachings of a particular religion
Human Nature Perspective – communication is humanizing
Political Perspective – tenets and values of political system (e.g., democracy)
Dialogical Perspective – communication is a dialogue
Situational Perspective – characteristics of a situation can determine what is ethical or not
Legal Perspective – whatever legal is also ethical
Social Utility Perspective – outcome to determine if the means were ethical
So why are ethics important in persuasion?
1) It involves one person, or a group of people, attempting to influence other people by altering their beliefs, attitudes, values, and actions.
2) It involves conscious choices among ends sought and means used to achieve the ends.
3) It necessarily involves a potential judge (the persuader) deciding what is better or worse for others (audience) based on subjective assessment.
Don’t we call out unethical persuasion?
While we as humans might generally have a good “ethical” compass we still let unethical persuasion occur.
We have several justifications that allow us to maintain this contradiction:
Everyone knows the appeal or tactic is unethical, so there is nothing to talk about.
Only success matters, so ethics are irrelevant to persuasion.
Ethical judgments are matters of individual opinion, so there are no final answers.
Ethical Responsibilities
While there are many philosophical perspectives on why this is, a philosopher name S. Jack Odell once stated:
“ethical principles are necessary preconditions for the existence of a social community. Without ethical principles it would be impossible for human beings to live in harmony and without fear, despair, hopelessness, anxiety, apprehension, and uncertainty” (p. 95). (Merrill & Odell, 1983)
Regardless both senders and receivers in a persuasive message hold ethical responsibilities
Within persuasion, many argue that we have a responsibility to uphold ethical behavior and “call out” unethical behavior
9
Sender Ethics
Examples of sender responsibilities are:
1) Consider the potential impact of our message on our audience.
2) Avoid ambiguous language and jargon that will prevent the audience from understanding.
3) Present accurate information.
4) Present our ideals accurately, rather than change them to fit the needs of the audience (have some conviction, don’t just say what audience wants to hear).
5) Consciously weigh the “ends/means” continuum.
As a persuader, we are ethically responsible for both the content of the message, as well as how the message is communicated.
10
Do the Ends Justify the Mean?
While the goal in persuasion is an important factor, the tactics and process that one uses to get to that goal can also have importance.
It is important to remember that even if the result is “good,” a persuasive messages content can have lasting effects on the audience.
Thus, in ethical terms, a sender must be responsible for how they get to the goal, and cannot claim ignorance about the tactics used to get there.
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/media-ethics-governance/persuasive-communication-mP4Zn
Ends/Means Checklist?
Warren Bovee (1991) proposed 6 questions that can be asked to assess the “ends vs. means” dilemma from an ethical perspective:
1. Are the means truly unethical/morally evil or merely distasteful, unpopular, unwise, or ineffective?
2. Is the end truly good, or does it simply appear good to us because we desire it?
3. Is it probable that the ethically bad or suspect means actually will achieve the good end?
Ends/Means Checklist? (cont.)
4. Is the same good achievable using other, more ethical means if we are willing to be creative, patient, determined, and skillful?
5. Is the good end clearly and overwhelmingly better than the probable bad effects of the means used to attain it? Bad means require justification whereas good means do not.
6.Will the use of unethical means to achieve a good end withstand public scrutiny? Could the use of unethical means be justified to those most affected by them or to those most capable of impartially judging
Receiver Ethics
1) Are your own ethical standards distorting the message of the sender? Are our own biases making something unethical that isn’t?
2) Are we stereotyping the speaker, making assumptions about her/his intentions without listening to the actual message?
3) Are we critically analyzing what we are hearing/seeing? We are responsible for “checking” speakers claims not just being passive
While the focus of ethics and persuasion is usually on the persuader (sender), there are also ethical responsibilities that we have as receivers.
There are several things that we must insure/examine as part of this responsibility.
14
Receiver Ethics (cont.)
4) As an audience, we are responsible to be educated and aware. We must constantly be seeking information, opinions, contradictory points of view, to be more informed about what we are being persuaded about.
5) We should be honest in our feedback.
6) We should be appropriate in our feedback (heckle when it is called for, but question/counterpoint when it is needed). Different persuasive situations call for different responses.
7) Avoid unethical responses to emotional messages. If persuasive messages lead to strong emotional states, it is our responsibility to not engage in ethical tactics (entrapment, verbal assault, verbal monopolization, etc.)
Example Case studies
Please read the Just Do It, Nike case study (available under Week 9) and answer the questions at the end. We will discuss the questions as a class; you do not need to submit your answers.
https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/22-nike-just-do-it-2018-case-study-1.pdf
Just Do It, Nike
Bring up Word Choice case study
16
Next Time
Continue discussions on ethics in persuasion and ethical communication
Reminders:
Final paper due 11/12
