Ethical frameworks for persuasive argument and communication

Ethical Behavior and Persuasion

Persuasion is the communications process (or "art") of convincing others of the correctness of your position or situational analysis, particularly in circumstances where they do not share your views at the outset of the exchange. There are many different types of tactical approaches to persuasion, but one of the most fundamental distinctions in that between ethical (or "good-faith") approaches and unethical (or "bad-faith") and the difference between honest argument dishonest argument.

Another important issue is the theoretical characterization of the purpose of argument. In that regard, some theories condone (even require) unethical argument tactics where necessary to achieve that which is objectively "good" in principle (Mihaly, 2007). Conversely, other theoretical characterizations prohibit unethical approaches to argument even when adhering to objective ethical rules results in that which is objectively "bad" (Mihaly, 2007). Unfortunately, the contemporary American political landscape and much of the big business community have become a natural laboratory for studying the depths of moral turpitude to which the strategy and tactics of persuasive argument can sink when individuals and groups take a "win-at-all-costs" approach at the expense of any semblance of ethics in persuasion (Stevens, 2008).

Ethical Theories in Persuasion

Virtue Ethics

According to virtue ethicists, the moral character of the mechanisms and means of accomplishing goals depends largely on the objective moral quality of the underlying purpose or objective sought through those means (Mihaly, 2007). In general, that means that lying may be perfectly moral (and telling the truth decidedly immoral) in circumstances where lying furthers moral "good" and where telling the truth furthers immorality. As applied to persuasion, that suggests that to the extent the purpose of a particular argument is to accomplish moral good (defined objectively), any persuasive tactic in argument is morally acceptable. Typical situations in which virtue ethics are actually applied would include the proverbial murderer asking for the whereabouts of his innocent intended victim.

According to virtue ethics, lying to the murder would be moral and providing the information by answering honestly would be immoral (Mihaly, 2007). Another example might be lying to a kidnapper in negotiations to free his hostages safely (Mihaly, 2007). While there are infinite logical complexities involved in determining exactly which specific goals justify dishonest or otherwise unethical approaches to persuasive argument, most would agree that virtue ethics analysis is appropriate in many situations.

Unethical Approaches to Persuasion in Contemporary American Politics

Unfortunately, contemporary American politics and big business often demonstrate the moral corruption of persuasive argument tactics, such as where business organizations tout their stated commitment to ethical responsibility while simultaneously exploiting moral loopholes in statutory law and policy (Svensson & Wood, 2008). The recent Republican shenanigans in relation to their political opposition to healthcare reform and to the fiscally (and morally) sound decision to allow the 2001 tax cuts to expire on schedule would be just two glaring examples of many.

In the first case, various Republican elected representatives and pundits argued disingenuously (and very deliberately) that "Obama Care" would be the equivalent of "Socialism"; that it would mean a "government takeover" of healthcare; and that it would result in "death panels" to determine which individuals had outlived their productive lives and would be barred from medical treatment and allowed to die, even against their will. In the second case, any of the same individuals argued, unashamedly, that allowing the 2001 tax cuts to expire on schedule was the equivalent of "increasing taxes" and argued vehemently that committing billions of (borrowed) dollars to the wealthiest 0.5% of the population (earning in excess of a million dollars annually) was more beneficial to the prospect for a national economic recovery.

In both cases, those arguments were completely unethical; moreover, both virtue ethics and strict rule utilitarianism would characterize those arguments as being immoral. The virtue ethics analysis would focus on the economic harm (and the fundamental unfairness to 99.5% of Americans) associated with the intended outcome of the persuasive appeal (Mihaly, 2007). The strict rule utilitarian ethical analysis would focus on the detrimental effects on society of promoting deliberately disingenuous and dishonest argument over genuine good-faith, honest argument (Mihaly, 2007)