Persuasion and Ethics

            Persuasion can be a hot topic for some people, especially those that are more susceptible to persuasion attempts. In fact, some people would go so far as to believe that all persuasive attempts are bad. Of course there are going to be some negative persuasion attempts, but it really comes down to the ethics of the persuader. If the persuader is behaving ethically and attempting to persuade the audience for a good reason or a good outcome, than it would be a positive example of persuasion. The purpose of this essay is to examine two different theories about ethics and the effect they have on persuasion.

            Why are ethics important when discussing persuasion? In general, people do not like to think about someone else (especially companies) altering their thoughts or behavior. So when discussing a persuasion attempt, it needs to be clear what the purpose or intention of the persuasion is in order to determine if it is ethical and appropriate. “Persuasion is unethical if it is for personal gain at the
expense of others or for personal gain without the knowledge of the audience” (Boundless, 2014).

            There are four parts to persuasion: intent, message, free will, and outcome. The intent is the intention or perceived result of the persuasion. The message is what is portrayed to the audience in order to influence them. The free will of the audience is a very important factor in persuasion – without the free will of the audience to accept or reject the attempt it is no longer persuasion and becomes coercion. Finally the outcome, which would be the result of the persuasion – what happened due to the reaction of the attempt, whether it was accepted or rejected.

            With the four parts of persuasion in mind, we will discuss two very different theories of ethics and how those theories are linked to the different parts of persuasion. The two theories being discussed are teleological ethics and deontological ethics. The names alone signify the difference in the two theories – “’teleo’ refers to ‘ends’” (Magee, 2014, sec. 3.2), meaning it is focused on the end result, the outcome, of the persuasion, while “’deon’ refers to ‘duty’” (Magee, 2014, sec. 3.2) which focuses on the intent of the persuasion.

            The most common theory of teleological ethics is utilitarianism – which is “seeking the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people” (Magee, 2014, sec. 3.2). This theory completely ignores the intent of the persuasion – the reasons or “motives are irrelevant” (Magee, 2014, sec. 3.3). As long as the outcome results in a greater good for the largest amount of people, the intention could be purely evil, and yet the persuasion is still ethical because of the outcome. The theory also states that the persuasion can still be ethical even if some people get hurt – as long as the amount of people that benefit is greater than the amount of people that are hurt.

            Now, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the most common deontological ethics theory is Kantian ethics which “consists of categorical imperatives, or moral commands, that apply in absolute sense in every situation” (Magee, 2014, sec. 3.4). Although the definition sounds complicated, it is a simple theory – the same rule applies every time, no matter what. Let’s look at an example, a very common moral command – do not lie. We know lying is bad, but is it bad in every situation? According to this theory, it is. What about telling a child to go to bed on Christmas Eve because Santa Clause is coming? Or telling a lie to cover up a surprise party you are throwing for your best friend? In Kantian theory, these are unethical because all lying is bad in every situation.

            As was mention, deontological ethics focuses on the intent of the persuasion and the outcome has no bearing on whether the attempt is ethical or not. “Unlike utilitarianism which ignores intention/motive, deontological ethics pays special attention to a person’s motive – doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still wrong” (Magee, 2014, sec. 3.4). So according to this theory, if a person has a good will and the intention of persuasion is fully ethical, if the outcome results in detriment, the persuasion was still ethical because the outcome does not matter. At the same time, if a persuasion attempt results in a positive outcome, but the persuaders intention was negative, the persuasion would still be considered unethical even though it has a positive result.

            In order to help companies ensure their messages are ethical, there are tests that can be used in either theory. The teleological theory would be able to use a Fitzpatrick & Gauthier Test, which consist of three questions: “1. For which purpose is persuasion being employed? 2. Toward what choices and with what consequences for individual lives is persuasion being used? 3. Does the persuasion in this case contribute or interfere with the decision making process for its target audience?” (Boundless, 2014). The deontological theory would use the TARES Test, which requires four elements in order to be ethical: “Truthfulness of the message, Authenticity of the persuader, Respect for the audience, and Equity of the persuasive appeal” (Boundless, 2014).

            Let’s use a real life example in order to examine these theories a little closer – “thou shall not kill”. First let’s look at the deontological theory which believes “moral actions are evaluated on the basis of inherent rightness or wrongness rather than goodness or a primary consideration for consequences” (Regis University, n.d.). According to this theory is unethical to kill someone for pulling out in front of you and driving slowly. At the same time, if a criminal was holding hostages in a bank robbery and had already killed two of the bank tellers, it would still be unethical to kill him – even though the outcome could save more people’s lives, the moral command applies in every situation, thou shall not kill.

            With the same command in mind, let’s look at the teleological theory which is “an ethical perspective that contends the rightness or wrongness of actions is based solely on the goodness or badness of their consequences” (Regis University, n.d.). Looking at the same situation of the driver, the scenario would still be unethical to kill someone for driving too slowly; there is no positive outcome for the greater good. What about abortion? How could killing a baby possibly be ethical? Say a young woman was raped and it resulted in pregnancy. The woman hates the child because it reminds her every day of the suffering she endured. She does a poor job of raising the child, using physical punishment and constant belittling, he grows up to be a very disturbed individual due to a lack of love as a child. He is now an adult and physically and emotionally abuses his significant others because that is how he was raised. Aborting the child at the beginning may be murder, but it would produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

            There are many different theories of how to determine if a situation is ethical or not. We have merely discussed two theories, but the difference between them is vast. No matter which theory is being used, it is important to ensure that persuasion attempts are ethical, especially in the business world. If a company chooses to be unethical in its advertising and/or marketing it could have detrimental effects if discovered. “What is legal may not necessarily be ethical” (Magee, 2014, sec. 3.1), so it is important to examine the message, intent, and outcomes of a persuasion attempt very carefully.

 

References

Boundless. (2014, July 3). The Ethics of Persuasion. Boundless Communications. Retrieved from https://www.boundless.com/communications/textbooks/boundless-communication-textbook/persuasive-speaking-14/introduction-to-persusasive-speaking-72/the-ethics-of-persusion-286-4177/.

Magee, R. (2014). Persuasion: A social science approach. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Regis University. (n.d.). Deonotlogical and Teleological Assumptions in Normative Ethics. Retrived from http://rhchp.regis.edu/hce/ethicsataglance/DeontologicalTeleological/DeontologicalTeleological_01.html.