Public Relations Ethics
(APHI 132)
Lecturer: Ms T. Nkohla
Email: NkohlaT@unizulu.ac.za
Office: Arts building, level 5, room 708
Contact: 035 902 6550
1
What to know as a student in this course

Content reflections will be written either every week or after every section covered.

Reflections will be marked based on understanding and not mere regurgitation.

In addition to the reflections, students will be writing tests and an exam in November

Class tests together with marks students receive from their reflection will count
towards the students DP mark of 50% before entering the exam

Students will also be exposed to case studies in class that will help them understand
better

Register will be taken at each class, students are strongly recommended to attend no
less that 80% of the lectures

Notes from each lecture will be put up on the university’s commutation science
website

The students are more than welcome to consult with either Miss T. Nkohla or Mr
Maphanga.
2
Content of the course
Introduction to Public relations
Here, we introduce communication as one of the important features of public relations. We
talk about how important it is for there to be mutual lines of existence between the
corporation and its stakeholders. Communication is highlighted as an important feature of
public relations because it is integral, from an ethical perspective, that public relations should
be a relation that encourages a dialogue between the corporation and its stakeholders as
opposed to a monologue that promotes propaganda. In the course it will be highlighted that
one way communication often promoted through propaganda is not the ethical manner that
corporations should use in communicating with its stakeholders. In communicating with
stakeholders, corporation can use advertising to manipulate customers and can discredit its
competitors. Both the former and latter issues mentioned can raise ethical issue of dishonesty
and damaging reputation of competitors.
Introduction to ethics
Referenced material (Business Ethics by Roussouw and van Vuuren (2004))
In introducing ethics, we start off by introducing ethics. We use e definition by Roussouw
and van Vuuren (2004), who highlight that ethics is not just about doing what is right over
what is wrong, it is more about aiming for good in human action. They argue that aiming for
good means that the corporation (or individual) should consider the self and the other. An act
3
that considers just the self is selfish and unethical; an act that considers just others is selfless
and therefore also falls short of being ethical. We also introduce very important ethical
theories, namely utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics and virtue theory. Starting off with
utilitarian ethics, it will be highlighted that utilitarian ethics is consequentialist, in the sense
that in order to see if an act is ethical, the consequences of the act need to be considered. Bad
act results in bad consequences and good actions result in good consequences. John Stuart
Mill as the philosopher that developed this theory from Bentham argues that this principle of
this ethic is to act in a way that will increase pleasure and decrease pain.
The second popular ethic theory that will be discussed is deontological ethics by Kant. Kant’s
deontological ethics is the opposite of utilitarian ethics in that it doesn’t look at consequences
of an act to make it ethical. What is does is that it looks at the quality of an act. For instance it
asks the question“is an act good in itself?” By this Kant means that the act doesn’t need to be
supported by anything to make it good, whether it be consequences or other acts, the act is
already good in itself. For instance honesty is good in itself. The famous example used for
this is the example of a Jewish boy that is chased by soldiers during the Second World War
This Jewish boy then runs into a stranger’s house and asks if he could hide from the soldier
and the stranger says yes. If the soldiers go to the strangers house and ask if the stranger has
seen the child, according to Kant the stranger should say yes and reveal the child from hiding.
For Kant, in doing so the stranger is being honest and tells the truth. So for Kant, telling the
truth is good in itself, regardless of the consequences. Bad consequences resulting from this
child being found does not erase the value of telling the truth according to Kant. Kant would
say with reference to this example that we should always tell the truth regardless of the
consequences. If the stranger lied to protect the child then the stranger would be doing
something bad (lie), to do something good (protect the child), which is wrong. We should do
4
something good in the first place (telling the truth) and not be concerned about the
consequences.
Kant states that the conditions for performing an ethical act are depended on rationality and
freedom. A person must be rational (have reason), not be moved by experience or emotions
whenever they are carry out an action. They must also be free when performing an act, a
person cannot be forced to act ethically, and one must be free to act ethically. Without
freedom an act doesn’t qualify as ethical, that’s what Kant would argue. Roussouw and van
Vuuren (2004) reveal that Kantian ethics has to do with acting out of ‘good will’, which is
acting out of universal law. Kant calls this universal law the categorical imperative, which
states that one should act in such as way that if your acts were to be made a universal
standard the world would be a better place. So with reference to the Jewish boy example,
Kant would argue that if lying to protect the Jewish boy were to be made a universal
standard, the world not be a better place if all of us lied. From this universal rule comes a
different rule that Kant establishes, Roussouw and van Vuuren (2004), which is a rule that
states that people should not be treated as a means to an end but rather as an end in
themselves. Here, Kant presents the idea that people should not be treated as if they have no
value, they must be treated with respect. People should not use other people to achieve selfish
goals but should consider that fact that people have human value.
The last ethical theory that will be looked at is the virtue ethics theory, a theory first
introduced by the famous philosopher Aristotle. Roussouw and van Vuuren (2004) introduce
this theory by stating that it is theory that is based on the development of human beings as
moral beings. Developing morally for Aristotle is important for human dignity. What is
morality for Aristotle? Rossouw and van Vuuren (2004) reveal that morality for Aristotle is
5
something that starts with the self, the individual character of the self. So virtue ethics looks
at the development of people’s character’s into good characters. This is because according to
Aristotle; it is only when your character is good that you can do good,Roussouw and van
Vuuren (2004:60). For morality to manifest, Aristotle argues that an individual should have
self-love.
Character development has to do with nurturing of values, Aristotle agues, Roussouw and
van Vuuren (2004). How are these virtues nurtured one may ask? Well, Aristotle argues that
they are nurtured by making rationality dominant over our appetites and emotions. We make
our rationality dominant by controlling our character traits, making sure that our character
traits entail virtues and not vices. For instance when looking at fear and confidence instead
of behaving rashly or being a coward, Aristotle argues that one should be courageous, as
courage is a virtue that lies between the vices rashness and cowardice behaviour. Another
example presented by Aristotle is the act or felling of shame, where instead of being shy and
shameless, one should pursue the virtue of modesty. Modesty is the balance between the vice
shyness and the vice shamelessness, Roussouw and van Vuuren (2004:61).
Virtues,
according to Aristotle’s, need to be constantly developed in our lives.
The Four Models of Public Relations
Referenced book (Introducing Public Relations Theory and Practice by Keith Butterick
(2011)
In looking at the public relations, the most important models that Grunig and Hunt present
will be discussed in this course, there are four of these models, namely the press/agentry
6
model, the public information model, the two way asymmetric model, and lastly the two way
symmetric model. In addressing these issues in this course, we will look at which model(s)
are seen as unethical and which model(s) is ethical. The first model that will be looked at is
the publicity model, which looks at the role of the press agents and publicists has played all
these years , which entailed getting as publicity, regardless of the truthfulness of the
information that was given to the public, Grunig and Hunt in Butterick ( 2011:25).
The second model that will be discussed is the public information model, which like the first
model is one way, but it is at least based on truthful information that the corporation shares
with the public. Grunig and Hunt in Butterick (2011:27) illustrate this with the anti-smoking
campaign. One could argue that companies that promote such campaigns are companies
which highlight and expose the truth about smoking and the effect that has on the smoker and
other people that inhale smoke from the smoker. This communication is truthful and
informative but this form of communication does not encourage the public to engage with the
corporation on information it has received.
The third model of public relations mentioned by Grunig and Hunt is the two-way
asymmetric model, which is grounded on persuasion. Here, Gurnig and Hunt mention that
communication from the corporation to the public is one which persuades the public into
purchasing a product, and only receives feedback from the public if it will help with the
selling of the product. This model is presented by Grunig and Hunt as the popular model
used by corporations in Public Relations.
7
Last but not least the model that will be looked at is the two-way asymmetric model, which
will be praised as the more ethical model which a corporation could use to relate with its
stakeholders. This model encourages dialogue between corporation and its stakeholders
In the vein of public relations, an important factor which will be mentioned in the course is
the trust that a corporation has with its stakeholders when speaks of public relations. This
form of communication links with a model that was shown in class, where the corporation as
a sender of information gives information to the public, and the public as the receivers of the
information give feedback. As much as this is the more ethical model, Grunig and Hunt state
that it is the model that is not often used by corporations.
Martin Buber on dialogue and existence (“I-It” relationship versus the “I- Thou”
relationship)
This theory by Martin Buber will introduce the unethical “I-It” form of dialogue used by
some corporations in public relations in comparison to the “I-Thou” dialogue that few
corporations use. The former is compared to the persuasive one way public relations model
and the latter is likened to the two-way symmetrical public relations model which will be
encouraged in this course. The goal of this course is to emphasise that the relations that a
corporation should have with the public is the relation that should treat the public as people
and not as objects. We will be re-iterating philosophers Kant’s idea that “we should not treat
each other as means to an end but as ends in themselves”. The two books that will be
explored in this section of the course are Martin Buber’s “Between man and man” as well as
“I and Thou” in the last leg of the course.
8