Here, in the 21st Century, attempts at persuasion fill the ether like so much white noise. Persuaders bombard us with messages requesting compliance in various media and with different approaches and styles. Who are these persuaders? They are legion, from politicians and marketing firms to individual physicians and lawyers. They present us with a request or demand to adopt their way of thinking, and perhaps even to comply with a requested action or behavior. Universally, these persuaders wish to succeed with our acceptance of their message, whether or not they themselves truly agree with said message.
However, is this correct, attempting to modify the thinking of others’ when the persuader is not truly a disciple himself? Whether or not the persuader is a sincere proponent of the idea, does he have an obligation to present the message ethically? Does applying an ethical approach, in fact, benefit the persuader? I believe that Ethics is of mammoth importance in all forms of Communication, and so an important consideration when implementing a campaign of persuasion.
Persuaders should apply an ethical approach to their message for two primary reasons. The first is that it is right and ethical. This may seem to be a circular argument, however the fact remains that morality and ethics have a terribly important role in this world of confusion and chaos. In a time in history when there is so much information (much of which is conflicted), stimulation and conflict, a need for a stabilizing collection of principles is paramount. There must be rules in place to strengthen our impression of centeredness.
If those wishing to change, or even reinforce, individuals’ beliefs, they should do so with the obligation of ethical methods. There have to be lines that should not be crossed. Yes, much of persuasion is manipulation of some kind, whether blatant or subliminal; yet outright deception, for instance, should be considered foul play. If the game is “tweaking” the audience’s perception a bit, the rules of the game should still allow the audience the opportunity, if it so chooses, to dissect and interpret the message for its truths. If the audience chooses the “lazy” route and accepts the message at face value, that is fair play and the persuader wins “fair and square.” Outright misrepresentations should be disallowed.
In this country, luckily, there are laws in place that largely protect audiences from being delivered patently false information. There are laws against libel, deceptive advertising, copyright and financial disclosure. Consider some of the disclaimers that are required and seen in the Chyron (text seen at the bottom of the video screen). Advertisers, though, are still allowed the use of “puffery”, defined by Marsh, Guth and Short (2009, p. 26) as “acceptable exaggeration in advertising.” The authors add, “To separate puffery from advertising, the FTC uses the ‘reasonable consumer standard.’ That standard says that if an ad could deceive a reasonable consumer who expects exaggeration in advertising, the ad becomes deceptive, and therefore, illegal.”
The second reason persuaders should use an ethical approach is that it is good for business. Consistent use of ethical means in their preparation of messages creates a heightened sense of credibility for the source. If receivers feel a sense of trust for the source, they are more inclined to accept future messages at face value. They might forego central processing, and use peripheral processing as they would feel that the message would not require an excessive amount of scrutiny. Marsh et al (2009, p. 17) support this by stating, “Although scholarly studies disagree about whether ethical behavior leads to financial success, they do agree on the opposite: Unethical behavior hurts profits and organizational success.”
Defining “Ethics”, however, is another matter as there have been multiple theories on what ethics should be from Aristotle’s Theory of Virtue to Ethical Hierarchism and Principle Ethics. Two of the more prominent theories are Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Deontology and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism. In Deontology, Kant believes that to behave in a moral way in all things is the prime directive. We must have the strong conviction and will to do “good” at all times. According to Michael S. Russo (n. d., para. 4), “For Kant it is having the right intention that makes the will good. … a good will is one that acts solely for the sake of duty. The person of good will for Kant is precisely that person who performs good acts simply because it is his duty to perform them and perhaps even despite his inclinations to do otherwise.” One could say that this is a very Christian outlook; Kant, however, says that these beliefs should be based upon principles, and not a deity. When faced with an ethical dilemma, we must only consider the rightness of our actions, in other words, “doing ‘Good’ for Good’s sake.”
The other major contemporary theory, Utilitarianism, posits that, when faced with a dilemma, one must do what is in the best long-term interests of everyone concerned. This theory can be said to fall under the category of Consequentialism because it focuses on the relative positive results of the decision, not the strongly held principles used to make it. The expression, “the end justifies the means” is often used to encapsulate the theory of Utilitarianism, because the ultimate measuring stick is if the decision has benefited the most people. There are two attributes of the theory, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. “In act utilitarianism, a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws. Rule utilitarianism, however, takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness” (Rainbow, C. 2002, para. 14).
Though all theories have their flaws, and these two are no exceptions, I would have to choose Deontology as my theory of choice. Utilitarianism requires the decision-maker to predict the consequences of his decision. This in of itself is a defective approach. How can one predict the future, regardless of the amount of detailed research one has done? As Rainbow states, “Although people can use their life experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no human being can be certain that his predictions will be true.” How does one determine what that most beneficial outcome is? Is it not impossible to remain objective and not interpret this data with a certain amount of bias? I contend that this decision-making process inevitably becomes a subjective one.
With all such subjective reasoning rationalization is bound to play a part. People are capable of making extremely logical-seeming rationalizations about anything. Many of the worst decisions made by world and national leaders were as a result of rationalization. The modern world is such a confusing, busy, fast-paced and stimulating one that I feel it is much more realistic to construct a solid set of individual principles, rather than try to predict the vagaries of today’s tomorrow.
Therefore, I believe that persuaders should indeed apply ethics when creating a message and/or strategy. They should keep the message within the realm of acceptable exaggeration without crossing over into deception. I do not condone the exploitation of the audience’s weaknesses. “Fear tactics”, for instance could be argued to be acceptable as long as the end result is a beneficent one – utilitarian rationalization? Persuaders should not try to justify the use of unfairly abusive tactics.
It is their responsibility as human beings, and it will ultimately create a bond of trust that will prove to be mutually rewarding. My viewpoint may seem a bit naïve, but I do believe in it, and stand behind it. If persuaders wish to ply their craft with a sense of integrity, I truly feel that they will benefit from this philosophy.
References
Marsh, C., Guth, D. W. & Short, B. P. (2009). Strategic writing: Multimedia writing for public relations, advertising and more. Boston: Pearson.
Rainbow, C. (2002). Descriptions of ethical theories and principles. Retrieved
March 4, 2010, from Davidson College website: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/
people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm
Russo, M. S. (n. d.). Deontology and its discontents: A brief overview of Kant’s ethics. Retrieved from http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/kant/deontology.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment