Ethical Persuasion

Name calling, lying, personal attacks, withholding information, presenting half-truths; these are some of the unethical techniques used in trying to persuade and influence audiences. Sometimes shocking and disturbing, sometimes times subtle and indirect, deceitful methods that manipulate individuals, as well as the masses, are among the most insidious communication practices of our day. Of course, this is nothing new; unethical persuasion has been foisted upon humanity since the devil seduced Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit. While unscrupulous tactics are often used in order to convince an audience to adopt certain views or behaviors, principled methods of persuasion are not only effective, but morally appropriate. This paper will examine deontological and utilitarian ethics, explore the impact of ethics in persuasion, and give examples of current unethical tactics being used in the political arena.

Deontology is a theory of ethics that is based on protocols of virtue and morality. The Encyclopedia Britannica explains;

In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2012).

Deontology mandates a person choose the “right” course of action regardless of what the consequences might be. A positive example of this is a person determined to be honest in every area of life; obeying traffic laws, filing complete and accurate tax returns, and being a productive and dependable employee. A negative example is the same person telling his wife in all honesty that the meal she spent hours preparing is perhaps the worst he’s ever tasted, when asked his opinion.

In terms of persuasion, deontology prescribes that audiences be given as many of the facts as is pertinent to the occasion, regardless of the possible consequences. So, if the scientific community discovered that an asteroid hurtling through space will collide with the earth on a certain day, the deontological approach requires that the public be told the horrifying truth in order to prepare for the event, even though it would likely result in chaos and panic.

Speakers holding to the deontological view will try to persuade their audiences through the use of informing, educating, and apprising, supporting their position with verifiable facts. This does not negate using passion or emotion in their attempts, but it does prohibit the use of manipulation or propagandizing. Deontology ethics gives people the opportunity to process what they hear in a rational way and come to their own conclusions about what to believe and what course of action, if any, they should take.

In contrast, the utilitarian theory of ethics is also known as situational ethics or pragmatism. This theory postulates that “each decision [should be] based on what would cause the least harm or the most good” (Cameron, 2008). A utilitarian, in principle and practice, believes the end justifies the means. In other words, this approach suggests that the outcome of a decision should determine the course of action a person takes. Utilitarian ethics prescribe that the best solution is one that benefits the greatest number of people, or conversely, negatively impacts the least number of people. So in the asteroid scenario described above, the utilitarian view would be to withhold the most devastating information (that only 20 percent of the world’s population is likely to survive), while incrementally preparing the public over time, in order to avoid widespread pandemonium.

A husband employing a utilitarian tactic might say to his wife, “Wow, honey! That was some dinner!” rather than hurt her feelings by confessing he almost gagged on the first bite. In a situationalist view the best course of action is to mitigate the consequences of being too blunt by only partially stating the truth.  One must consider the motive of the speaker, which, in this case, is not manipulation, but a regard for the happiness of another person.

Unfortunately, the happiness and well-being of others is not the main goal of many of today’s politicians, who use unethical means to persuade audiences to support or vote for them. Consider how propaganda, manipulation, and seduction are used in campaign speeches.

One form of propaganda is to discredit an opponent or their views through distortion, rumors, or misleading information. For instance, a candidate who says he is against raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year because it would impact jobs, might have an opponent who accuses him of favoring the “super rich” and having no concern for the poor. Concerning the 2008 presidential election campaign, one columnist observed the use of ad hominem attacks by democrats on Governor Sarah Palin;

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, as part of his endorsement of Obama, said Palin “scares the hell out of me.” And Obama hit Palin in nearly a dozen different press releases — one day after drawing laughs at a campaign stop by calling her a “moose shooter.”

Throughout the campaign Palin endured personal jabs on everything from her appearance to her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, all in an unethical attempt by political opponents to turn public opinion against her. According to Seiter and Gass, people can move from constructive argumentation to aggressive or hostile communication when they feel they are losing the argument or cannot support their own position (Seiter, 2008).

In the current 2012 presidential campaign, we have witnessed many unethical uses of persuasion by both parties. Newt Gingrich was personally attacked for his multiple marriages. Mitt Romney has been called a “vulture capitalist” by his opponents. Character assassination against Sarah Palin is rampant even though she is no longer running for office. Barrack Obama has been the recipient of racial slurs. None of these unethical tactics have advanced the truth, addressed the issues, or provided solutions to our nation’s problems. They have only increased the public’s distrust of the government.

Propaganda is not only dishonest and unethical, but it undermines a society because people come to mistrust everything they hear from the media even when the information received is true.

The effects of a belief in general gross insincerity are apparent in societies in which the state media delivers only propaganda. Citizens who grow up in a state in which the authorities deliver propaganda have no experience with trust. So even if the members of that society have access to reliable news, say via the Internet, they do not trust it. They are trained to be suspicious of any organ marketing itself as news (Stanley, 2011).

Propaganda may seem to be pragmatic way to achieve the “public’s best interest,” but it is deceptive and generally intended to benefit only the person or entity disseminating it.

One of the differences between ethical persuasion and unethical manipulation is that persuasion is used to benefit the audience, whereas manipulation is used to benefit the speaker. So, a political candidate advocating lower taxes because it will benefit society by relieving financial pressure on families while at the same time stimulating the economy, is using persuasion to gain the confidence and vote of the people. On the other hand, a politician who owns stock in the cattle industry might give a speech on the benefits of supporting local ranchers, not because he cares about his constituency, but because he wants the value of his investment to go up, is manipulating his audience.

Ethics are crucial in persuasion, especially in politics, because it is the basis on which free societies remain free. Canadian political reformer, Preston Manning, as quoted by Fekete, warned, "Any political strategy, tactic, or technology which deliberately employs a lie to misdirect or mislead a voter is deplorable ethically and for the damage it does to the democratic process and public confidence in all parties and politicians” (Fekete, 2012). In other words, unethical political strategies undermine the trust of the citizenry. When a nation’s leaders cannot be trusted, it debauches the democratic system, compromising not only the integrity of the leaders, but the stability of the country.

We have examined the impact of unethical methods of persuasion in the realm of politics, but the problem of unethical tactics is broad and far-reaching. Ethical behavior is requisite in all areas of life; individually and societally. The importance of honesty, integrity, and concern for the welfare of others is foundational in personal relationships, business, politics, medicine, religion, and in every other human interaction. When a person or entity tries to persuade an audience, the best course to take is the ethical one, whether they are coming from a deontological view or a utilitarian one. The end does not always justify the means, but where the end result is that people are given enough valid information to be able to make a free-will choice of their own, ethics has been well served.

References

Cameron. (2008). Public Relations Today: Managing Competition and Conflict. Pearson Learning Solutions, p. 204.

Deontological ethics. (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/158162/deontological-ethics.

Fekete, J.  (2012, March 11). ‘Do the right thing,’ Manning tells Tories; Reform patriarch says political parties, schools must provide training in ethical politics. The Ottawa Citizen, A.3.  Retrieved April 16, 2012, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 2608561211).

Seiter, J., & Gass, R. (2004).  Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining [Electronic version]. Pearson Custom Publishing).

Stanley, J. (2011). The ways of silencing. The New York Times. Retrieved April 16, 2012 from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/the-ways-of-silencing.

Vandehei, J. & Allen, M. (2008). Obma, Dems sharpen personal attacks on Palin. Politico. Retrieved April 16, 2012 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13315.html.