COMS 3312-16-1
Ethics and Rhetorical Communication
COMS 3312
Chapter 16
This chapter is a reflection of the author’s opinions; not necessarily the compilation of studies
and other expert opinion.
The Ethics of Means or of Ends—
The question of judging something on the ends achieved or the means employed to reach those
ends has been asked and debated seemingly forever. The difficulty arises when we use good
means to achieve a bad ending or a bad means to achieve a good ending. Use of powerful
emotions has been used many times to motivate people into action. This is sometimes done for
just reasons, but sometimes for grossly unjust ones. We expect persuaders to be up-front with
us about their intentions. But even if they are, that is no guarantee that what they say or do
will be ethical. The Machiavellian ethic of “the ends justify the means” is universally rejected
as being unethical. But it is much easier to say this if we are not the one employing that
concept. What is unjustified behavior to one person (propaganda) might be good, effective
persuasion to the next one. In the abstract it is easy to do the right thing, but in reality we
often faced with many “gray area” choices and what might be theoretically thought of as living
in a means-centered ethic, we find ourselves existing in an ends-centered one. In short, it’s not
uncommon for someone to think that what the other guy does as being unethical, while what
we do as necessary and proper. This so-called seeing the world through rose-colored glasses
makes ethical decisions difficult at times.
Lying is another persuasive technique that we universally condemn as an unethical act. Yet in
the short-term, liars sadly have proven to be just as effective or more so than those who are
honest. Long-term lying will probably damage a source’s ethos beyond repair. So don’t do it!!
The means-centered or ends-centered ethic systems can’t really work; it must be based on the
source’s intent as a communicator.
An Ethic Based on Intent toward the Audience—
Ethical systems are concepts that must be taught to and learned by individuals. Until we know
the rules of society with respect to ethical behavior, we cannot be ethical or unethical.
Therefore, “ethics is a matter of the conscious choices a person makes.” People must choose to
do wrong before we can condemn them as being unethical or immoral. The only meaningful
way we can evaluate the ethics of a source is on the basis of intent. Our society says that good
intent is the desire to do good for people. Or as Aristotle said, perform “goodwill.” This
suggests that persuasive tools available to the communicator are neither ethical nor unethical.
It is how they are used. If the person’s intent is not honorable, then the use of any persuasive
technique will be unethical. In short, if the source seeks to protect the well-being of the
audience then the act committed is moral. If the source seeks to do harm to the audience, the
act is immoral. But if the source’s intent is neither to help nor harm, the act committed is
amoral.
Ethics and Ethical Proof—
Ethics and Ethos; both important to the rhetorical communicator but they are not the same
thing. If you are perceived by your audience to be a good person, your persuasiveness will be
enhanced by your ethos. Ethical proof has little to do with ethics (your intent to follow the rules
established by society). Ethics is really ethos misnamed.
COMS 3312-16-2
Persuasion and Coercion—
Having the ability to force others to conform to our wishes is a major ethical problem. Using
force to get others to comply is not part of rhetoric. Rhetoric implies a freedom of choice on the
receiver’s end. Coercion removes that choice. Rhetorical communication understands that
audiences can agree, disagree, or make no decision at all. All coercion is not inherently bad or
evil. There are times we need to force people to do things that they would not do on their
own. A child is unlikely to eat properly unless a parent ensures they do. Choice is not an
option as to whether to eat chocolate or spinach. So, coercion and rhetoric are separate and
distinct means of achieving the same ends. Once we start down the road of coercing people to
do things, we greatly reduce our effectiveness at true persuasion. People will lose respect for
us and fear us. In short, those who use coercion will only gain compliance out of fear not by
choice.
Amoral vs. Moral Approaches to the Ethics of Rhetorical
Communication—
Rhetorical techniques by definition are amoral…they are neither moral nor immoral.
Intent is key; not what was or how it was said. The amoral perspective says that
everyone should be allowed to speak and be trained as a rhetorical communicator. The
moral view says that only good people should be trained as rhetoricians or be allowed to
voice their opinions. In theory, it is easy to back the amoral perspective. In practice it
is much harder. For example, the amoral view says that however objectionable the KKK
is, they have a right to their views and can speak their mind. The moral view would
say, the KKK stands for the ugliness, ignorance, and hate in our society. It is based on
racist and immoral beliefs and therefore those members should not be allowed to speak
such hatred.
The Essence of Free Speech—
The US Constitution subscribes to the amoral position on ethics and assumes that
everyone should have right to free speech; that the public should have the right to hear
all sides of an issue. In theory we all subscribe to this view, but it’s much harder to
swallow when someone is spouting hate words (in our opinion). It’s easy to start
thinking that such speech needs to be curtailed so that it more closely “fits” our point of
view. Some governments will impose control over what is and what is not “free”
speech. The US keeps a hands-off approach, at least to a large degree. Subtle pressure
can and is applied to keep people “in line.”
The Advocate System—
Lawyers should be classic examples of rhetorical communicators; arguing facts and
principles of law to sway the legal system to see an issue their way. How effective they
are will influence the outcome of the legal issue. We tend to like this system until
someone we think is guilty is found innocent or someone we are convinced is innocent is
found guilty.
Ghostwriting of Messages for Rhetorical Communication—
Some will argue that writing a message for someone else is little more than plagiarism
and definitely unethical or immoral. But those in need of a ghostwriter (like any
President of the United States) do so for practical reasons. It is impossible to fulfill the
COMS 3312-16-3
duties of the job while also writing the speech or letter. Probably best to view this as
amoral since those who ghostwrite try to closely approximate the feelings, attitudes, and
words of the source as possible.
The Totalitarian Ethic vs. the Democratic Ethic—
Totalitarian governments endorse the moral ethic of rhetorical communication. In short,
they determine what is moral and what is proper and acceptable speech. Democratic
governments endorse the amoral ethic of communication and let the public decide what
is and what is not the truth. The main distinction between the two ideologies is in their
control of fee speech. Totalitarian regimes will use laws and coercion to influence
behavior. Democratic governments will use social pressures to influence such behavior.
There are instances in our past when we have used totalitarian tactics to control
behaviors (the McCarthy era) and there have been times when people have tried to
force others via violence to conform to their views (student demonstrations in the
1960s against the Vietnamese War). The only way to ensure speech for ourselves is to
guarantee it for everyone.
Ethical Obligations in a Free Society—
 To speak—we have an ethical obligation to speak when we sincerely believe we
know what is right. When we see injustice, we have an ethical responsibility to speak
out against it. But most of us fail to live up to this high standard. It is easier to
remain quiet; to compromise our beliefs in order to protect ourselves from criticism
or other reasons.
 To speak well—it’s not enough to just speak up, but we need to do so effectively.
Our society says we have an obligation to learn to communicate well and
opportunities exist to accomplish that. But this is sometimes hard to do. It requires
effort and practice to learn to be a good communicator. Many times we just too lazy
to take the time to learn to communicate well.
 Not to Speak—Just as it is important to speak up when we know we are right, it is
equally critically not to do it if we suspect we are wrong; or are unsure of our
argument. In a slight variation of the quote, “it is best to be thought the fool than
to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” Not exactly the same situation here but
the basic premise is the same. Yet all too frequently our self-interests get the best
of us over our ethical values. Even when we know something is not good for
someone else, we are apt to argue the point if it serves our interests instead of the
good for the whole.
 To Listen—Most of communication time is spent listening; not writing or speaking.
We have an ethical obligation to let others speak and voice their opinions while we
pay attention to them. We don’t have to agree; but we need to listen so our
evaluation can be based on solid principles as opposed to biased opinions. One of
the challenges is our tendency for selective exposure. Fight off the urge to only
watch or read the views of those who already agree with your point of view or your
values. The more we fall victim to selective exposure, the less we can uphold our
ethical responsibility to listen objectively.
Final Word on Ethics—
The author takes an amoral view on ethics; arguing that an informed and educated
public will ultimately root out those who are unethical and reward those communicators
COMS 3312-16-4
who are. He claims that where ethical violations occur, a credibility gap will emerge and
the source of ethical breeches will no longer have the authority or effectiveness to
persuade an audience. But this will only happen if and when the audience is vigilant in
its ethical duty to critically evaluate the source and the tools used in the persuasion.
How well did the Germans do in evaluating Hitler’s rhetoric in the 1930’s and 1940s?
Can be expect today’s audiences to be any more (or less?) vigilant with today’s
messages? We can afford to listen and believe our leaders only as long as we are
convinced that their arguments are ethical and delivery in our best interests as a society
and country.