Jack Brilhart, John Bourhis, Bonnie Miley & Charlene Berquist

Communication, as a primary instrument of human behavior, pervasively touches and affects the lives of others. Therefore, the argument goes, communication if it is to contribute to the growth of society, must be associated with and governed by ethics. If such is not the case, the power of communication will be used by self-seeking and self-serving individuals and groups for essentially destructive ends.1

We cannot open a newspaper, turn on the television, or listen to the radio without reading, seeing or hearing another example of unethical behavior. What did President Bush know about the arms-for-hostages deal and when did he know it? The Speaker of the House of Representatives is accused of 69 counts of unethical behavior by his colleagues. A Marine "hero" is indicted for diverting funds for personal advantage and of lying to the Congress of the United States.

A 1987 poll by U.S. News and World Report indicated that 71 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with current standards for honesty. The majority believed that people were less honest than they had been ten years before.2 Time magazine observed: "Ethics, often dismissed as a prissy Sunday School word, is now the center of a new national debate."3

In 1984 the Speech Communication Association, an organization of communication scholars and professionals, established a commission on ethics. This commission reflects the concern among communication scholars for the communicative ethics of students, business leaders, and public officials. In 1988 the Central States Speech Association made "Responsible Communicators" the theme of its convention, further reflecting the interest of communication teachers in ethics. Today, most teachers of public speaking feel responsible for encouraging their students to act according to a strict code of ethics when speaking in public.

Communication ethics involve intentional choices about what one ought to do when communicating in relation to such values as "justice," "goodness," and "truthfulness."4 Nilsen, in Ethics of Speech Communication, wrote that speaking is ethical only if it meets two criteria: (1) it contributes to the overall well-being of others, and (2) that was the intent of the speaker.5 In other words, the speaker wanted to benefit the listeners and did so. Because public speakers can profoundly influence beliefs and actions of listeners, they are morally obligated to evaluate choices they make when planning and speaking.

Being a responsible public speaker is not required by law. Short of advocating the overthrow of the United States government, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or slandering other persons, there are few things you could say on a public platform that are "illegal." Responsible communicating is a matter of personal morality, dependent upon the extent to which your conduct is governed by a self-imposed code of right and wrong, good and evil, of "I will" and "I won't."

The decade of the 80's has often been called the "Me" decade. Best-selling books like Looking Out for Number One encouraged self-centered, self-serving behavior. Many people lived by the philosophy of "If it feels good, do it." Believing that everything is relative led to rationalizing a host of unethical behaviors. In the short run the self-centered and socially irresponsible may reap riches. But in the long run those not governed by a social conscience lose. We hope you never speak by the ethic of "I'll do whatever it takes to gain my immediate goal."

How can you decide on the ethical standards that will guide you? The following guidelines are intended to help you answer this question.

Guidelines To Developing Personal Ethics As a Public Speaker

• Each individual must confront his or her personal beliefs about ethics in speaking. Not to develop a standard of ethics to guide your preparation and practice as a public speaker is to be unethical. You cannot take moral refuge in the cliche "Everyone is doing it," or "He told me to say that." YOU choose how you will act when speaking in public. Your choices have implications for your listeners, your organization, your community, your nation, and for your self-concept and self-esteem. The following two ethical perspectives are choices we encourage each of you to make as public speakers.

Political Democracy

In developing a basis for ethical public speaking, Karl Wallace, a distinguished historian and critic of American public address, concluded that four values are central to our society.

• The dignity and rights of the individual must have priority over the state and other values. This idea was presented in the Declaration of Independence, and was expressed by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg address as " . . . government . . . for the people."
• Each person must have equal opportunity under law to make informed choices, aim for a higher standard of living, and otherwise secure the benefits of liberty.
• So long as the rights of other persons are respected, each individual should be free to make personal choices about what to eat, where to live, which job to take, for whom to vote, and so on.
• Each individual should have a chance to develop to the limits of his or her full capacity.7
  

From these four values Wallace established four ethical guidelines to govern communicative behavior in the American democracy. These guidelines are an excellent basis for your personal code of ethics as a public speaker.

• During public speaking events one person is often the sole source of information and argument, so the speaker is obligated to have a thorough knowledge of the subject. The speaker should be able to answer any question relevant to the central idea of the speech.
• Only by presenting a representative description of facts and opinions on a given topic can a speaker make it possible for listeners to make informed judgments about what is said.
• In order to allow listeners to evaluate bias, prejudice, or self-serving behaviors that might have influenced the selection of supporting materials, speakers must always report the sources of information and opinions included in a speech.
• The speaker is obligated to display a "tolerance for dissent," shown by respecting opposing arguments in any controversy and encouraging opposing arguments by other speakers. Any effort to conceal arguments by opponents would be unethical. Ridicule, sarcasm, and distorting or ignoring arguments advanced by opponents are all unethical. Treating a multi-sided issue as if there were only one position worth considering would be unethical by this standard.
  

Social Reciprocity

• In addition to being knowledgeable, fair in the presentation of information, providing sources, and tolerating dissent, the ethical public speaker demonstrates social reciprocity. Social reciprocity can be illustrated by asking yourself the question: "How shall I treat my fellow human beings?" Several major religions have given the same general answer to this question, an answer grounded in a sense of social reciprocity, otherwise called "fair play." The answer is: "Treat others as you want to be treated by them." This is a universal value that can be referred to as a guide for conduct in every public speaking situation. Deceptive speaking by government officials, advertisers, religious leaders, professionals, and others who exercise public influence affects each of us, and threatens the core values on which our political democracy depends. If we copy the ethics of the unethical leader on the grounds that everyone is doing it, the fabric of freedom is destroyed. The most central guideline for ethics in your speaking is to treat your listeners the way you want to be treated as a listener.

Some Issues To Consider When Developing a Personal Code:

How to apply the social reciprocity guideline raises a number of issues speakers face while preparing and speaking in public.|

• The Amorality of Rhetoric

Collectively called "rhetoric," the principles of effective public speaking are only tools. Like the martial arts of judo and taekwondo, rhetoric is neutral and can be used for good or evil. A knife can be used to perform many beneficial tasks or it can be used to murder. Public speaking can be used to serve self at the expense of others, or to serve self and others at the same time. As a speaker, you can choose to use rhetorical tools to make lies appear true, to subvert critical thinking, or to make the worst choice appear the best. The responsibility for such acts is yours. Rhetoric per se is amoral.

• Consequences Versus Intentions

If you kill a person with your car, whether as premeditated murder, negligence, or drunk driving, the result is the same--the person is dead. The same is true of public speaking. You do not have to intentionally deceive or mislead for your words to have harmful consequences for listeners. Inadequate preparation and careless use of language can have the same harmful effect as intentional deception. If your research is inadequate and you do not discover that a particular charity you persuade others to support is really a front for organized crime, you deceive your listeners despite good intentions. Taking a public stand on controversial issues like abortion or capital punishment is a great responsibility. To speak publicly without thoroughly considering the possible consequences of your speech is questionable. To speak carelessly in public without adequate information is like shooting a rifle without considering where the bullet may strike.

All public speaking requires listener time and energy. If you speak to 25 classmates for only five minutes, that is over two hours of other people's time and energy. Do any of us have a right to waste the time of people who are virtual captives in a classroom audience? Imagine that you are a professional speaking to three hundred people at a training conference. They have taken a day from work to attend at their own expense. You are scheduled to speak for 45 minutes. That means you are responsible for 225 hours of collective time. At only $15.00 per hour you would be using over $3,000 worth of work time. Was your preparation adequate to merit such an investment? Did you adapt as well as you could have to the needs and concerns of your listeners? Both the consequences of your speaking and your intentions determine the ethics of your speaking.

• Sources of Information and Opinions

In a very real sense, no information used in a speech is better than its source. Robert and Dale Newman, scholars of public debate, summarized dozens of critiques of "news" stories and editorials in publications such as the New York Times, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, and The Washington Post. They also evaluated press releases from academic scholars, the Department of State, and the White House. They found inaccuracies, bias, unsubstantiated information reported as fact, and erroneous conclusions. One conclusion is clear: it is unethical to use evidence in a speech without checking the source and the information carefully.9 To pass on as true or valid what one writer or agency has said without cross-checking the information may put you in a position of passing on lies, omissions, and half-truths. Such behavior is a failure to take personal responsibility for what you say that may have significant consequences for listeners.

A speaker must also decide when to give credit to sources of information and ideas. Not doing so restricts the ability of the listener to evaluate the speech, and sometimes takes credit for work done by other people. Failing to give credit when information is not generally known by people familiar with an issue or when an idea originated with someone else is to be guilty of plagiarism. Senator Joseph Biden was forced to withdraw from his Presidential campaign after he was found to have plagiarized. Most colleges and universities punish students proven to have plagiarized on papers or speeches, usually with a grade of F and/or expulsion. Scholars who plagiarize are considered unethical by colleagues, and are usually barred from professional organizations, fired by their universities, and/or ostracized. In an academic environment plagiarism is a very serious ethical violation. The principle of treating other people as you want them to treat you applies to crediting sources of ideas and information. Just as you like to be given credit for work you do, give credit to others on whose thinking and ideas you depend.

• Emotional Appeals

Sometimes speakers use testimony, statistics and examples irrelevant to an argument to distract, subvert rational criticism, or cover up a lack of substantive evidence and reasoning. Emotional appeals are one such strategy. If you know how, it may be possible to use music, visual aids, or atypical or irrelevant stories to evoke strong emotions such as pity, sympathy, or fear, and then transfer the feelings of your listeners to your central idea. For example, in order to arouse hatred and violence, bigots used to claim that Jews sacrificed babies during the celebration of Passover. Hitler used martial music, signs, and other techniques to arouse an audience before he began to speak. Both Khomeini and Saddam Hussein call the United States "The Great Satan" in order to arouse hatred from uneducated Muslims. To arouse strong emotions by appeals to listeners' drives, needs, hopes, prejudices, and fears when there is no logical connection between these feelings and the facts is unethical. The effect on some listeners is much like that of deception through hypnosis.

Some writers have questioned whether it is ever ethical to evoke powerful emotions to influence listener responses. They ask if emotional stories of suffering, disaster, or even of joy are ethical in speaking. The answer depends on how, when, and why the speaker attempts to evoke powerful emotions. Even the most objective statistics about the increased probability of dying of cancer if one is exposed to radon gas in one's home, of getting AIDS if one is sexually promiscuous, or of painful tooth decay if one is careless about dental hygiene will have a highly emotional impact on listeners when used as evidence for the logical proof of a claim. Listeners often do not have time or resources to determine whether materials used to develop ideas are either logical or emotional. There is nothing unethical about the use of such materials if they are used accurately to create a valid image and they are not intended to subvert listeners' critical thinking skills. The challenge to the public speaker is one of arousing appropriate emotion and integrating it with reasoned critical thought. If emotion-evoking materials are used as a substitute for valid evidence and to deflect critical evaluation of a speaker's ideas, they are used in a deceptive, unethical manner.

Sincerity of emotion on the part of a speaker is not sufficient warrant for using materials. The speaker's claim must always be well grounded in careful observation. A conclusion must be logically valid, not just what the speaker wants us to believe regardless of evidence and logic. Personal feelings can be presented ethically, if clearly stated as the personal feelings of the speaker. Anything done by a speaker to lead listeners to do less than make critical choices about what to accept as information, what to believe, and what to do is ethically suspect.

• Nonverbal Deception

Nonverbal signs can be used in many ways to deceive listeners. One common technique is to wear signs of group membership when the speaker is not a member of the group represented. For instance, actors dressed as physicians recite claims for non prescription drugs. Slogans and mottos can be displayed, parts of uniforms, insignia, pictures, false diplomas, identifying jewelry such as a star of David or a cross, or clothing that is associated with special expertise or affiliations can be displayed without comment. If the speaker has no personal membership in the group or organization suggested, the speaker may be attempting to deceive listeners.

• Speaking As a Representative

It is unethical to conceal or misrepresent the fact that you speak as a representative of or advocate for another individual or organization. For instance, it would be unethical for a person on the payroll of the National Education Association to speak in support of a bill to increase federal support for public schools without acknowledging being a representative of the NEA. A physician paid by the American Tobacco Institute would be acting unethically if in speaking about the relationship between using tobacco and diseases he or she did not state clearly that the Tobacco Institute was his or her employer. Not to acknowledge membership in such organizations as Right to Life, National Rifle Association, Friends of Animals, or a nuclear power lobby when speaking on controversial issues which these groups have taken a strong public stand on reduces the opportunity for listeners to judge your possible bias. We are not urging you to emphasize differences from your listeners, but to reveal information they need in order to evaluate what you say.

• Ends Versus Means

Sometimes you may be tempted to use deception, hide a vital fact from listeners, or otherwise distort because you think the cause you represent is so important it justifies an exception to the standard of truth. For example, Colonel Oliver North lied to Congress about his violation of the law in diverting funds to support the military efforts of the Nicaraguan Contras. North claimed that the defeat of a communist government in Central America justified breaking the law and lying. Lying, distortion, exaggeration, and manipulation in public speeches is never justified. We agree with the statement often repeated by Mahatma Ghandi: "Evil means, even for a good end, produce evil results." Lying, murder, and taking credit for deeds of others are never justifiable as ethical behavior regardless of the result.

• Changes In Personal Speaking Style

Students sometimes ask if it is ethical to develop two or more different styles of speaking and more than one spoken vocabulary. "Shouldn't I be true to the way I grew up?" For instance, if you grew up in a rural area of Eastern Kentucky or a barrio of Los Angeles would it be ethical for you to learn general American dialect and use it as a public speaker in college, then again use your original speech patterns when back home? If you come from New Jersey, would it be right to take on the accent of a Midwesterner while attending college at the University of Illinois? Is it ethical to practice being more flexible and forceful in voice and gestures? The answer is "Of course!" Virtually every person living in our media-connected world develops several dialects, and unconsciously shifts from one to the other in different social contexts. There is nothing unethical about consciously and intentionally learning the special jargon of a trade or profession, or the vocal characteristics of a particular group. Your speech patterns will shift naturally if you move into a geographic area or social class of people you like. It is ethical to choose words your listeners are most likely to understand, and to develop new-to-you speaking techniques to help your listeners understand as you intend. Learning to speak in new ways is as ethical as any other learning so long as it is not done to deceive.

Summary

In recent years concern for the ethics of people in a position to influence the beliefs and actions of others has become a major subject of public discussion in the United States. No public speaker can avoid responsibility for developing a personal code of ethics. Following orders or doing as unethical people do is no defense. This is not primarily a matter of law, but of personal choice.

Maintenance of freedoms in the United States depends on following a value requiring that public speakers must serve the best interests of listeners, as they see those interests, rather than seeking to exploit them. Socially, the most important part of preparation are the moral choices you make in deciding what to accomplish, and what materials and rhetorical strategies to use. To be an ethical public speaker, one who emphasizes democracy and freedom, you must acquire a thorough knowledge of your topic, be fair when presenting information, help listeners make informed choices, and be willing to live with dissent from other equally ethical speakers. Basic to being ethical is preparing and speaking as one would want other speakers (to whom one listens) to prepare and speak. At a minimum this means employing rhetorical tactics only for socially defensible ends, finding and using the best available sources of information, giving credit to sources for information and ideas, attempting to arouse only emotions which are appropriate to the facts of the matter, and avoiding all forms of deception. It means never rationalizing the use of unethical tactics because the objective is noble and important. Being socially responsible when many speakers around are self-serving, deceptive, and exploitive will be difficult and may even seem impractical at times. But in the long run your credibility with others and your own peace of mind will be your reward.

Notes

1. Russel B. Windes, "Preface," in Thomas R. Nilsen, Ethics of Speech Communication, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1974), p. v.

2. Merrill McLoughlin, Jeffrey L. Sheler and Gordon Witkin, "A Nation of Liars," U.S. News and World Report, February 23, 1987, pp. 54-60.

3. "What Ever Happened to Ethics?" Time, May 25, 1987, pp. 14-29.

4. Vernon Jensen "Teaching Ethics in Speech Communication," Communication Education 34 (October, 1985): 324-330.

5. Thomas R. Nilsen, Ethics of Speech Communication, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1974), pp. 16-18.

6. Richard Johannesen, Ethics in Human Communication, 2nd ed. (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1983).

7. Karl Wallace, "An Ethical Basis of Communication," Speech Teacher 4 (1955): 1-9.

8. Karl Wallace, pp. 1-9.

9. Robert P. Newman and Dale R. Newman, Evidence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969), pp. 91-225.