Ethical and Unethical Communication

This chapter explores the relationship of communication to ethics. Introductions to general guidelines for ethical
communication, related dialogic virtues and skills, and additional tools for recognizing and addressing ethical
issues are included. The principles, guidelines, and tools outlined below reflect insights from numerous
disciplines and are applicable within and across diverse 21st-century contexts.

Communication—the use of available resources to convey information, to move, to inspire, to persuade, to

enlighten, to connect—is an inherently ethical undertaking. Regardless of context, communication involves
choice, reflects values, and has consequences. These three key elements of communication form the basis of its
ethical makeup.

Ethics is the study of values, of what is more or less important, of the “good,” of behavioral guidelines and
norms. Ethics provides frameworks and tools for recognizing and assessing available options and for
differentiating between more or less morally justified pathways in any given situation.

Scholars have identified numerous approaches to the study of communication ethics (Arneson, 2007; Boss,
2004; Bracci & Christians, 2002; Jaksa & Pritchard, 1994; Johannesen, 2002; Makau & Arnett, 1997). Some
approaches focus on intentions, others on means, and still others on consequences. Some approaches to
communication ethics focus primarily on duties, obligations, rights, and responsibilities, while others emphasize
the importance of dispositional traits and related abilities, referred to by many as virtues. Some communication
ethics scholars derive guidelines from community, others stress the importance of authority, while still others
turn primarily to the individual for ethical insight. Some perspectives on communication ethics focus on
narrative, while others feature reason and argument, and still others integrate both approaches to
understanding and decision making. Some communication ethicists stress situational factors more than others,
but all approaches to the study recognize the importance of context. This chapter explores shared elements of
diverse ethical frameworks and introduces resources for recognizing and responsibly addressing ethical issues
across contexts.

Historical Links Between Communication and Ethics

Throughout history, unethical communication has been one of humanity's most potentially harmful weapons. In
interpersonal contexts, communication has the power to wound deeply, to undermine connection, and to thwart
healthy human development. Within institutional contexts, unethical communication has been used to support
greed and corruption, to bolster tyranny, and otherwise to foster oppression. Historically, communication has
been instrumental in sparking and justifying economic injustice, violence, war, genocide, and tribal conflicts.

At the same time, the art of communication has been instrumental to the pursuits of truth, wisdom, justice, and
peace. Historically, responsible and effective communication has fostered loving connection, compassion, and
understanding.

Communication's powers to hurt and to heal, to repress and to inspire, to betray and to uplift, to oppress and to
comfort, to deceive and to enlighten, to wound and to mend are among the direct links between communication
and ethics. The pages to follow will reveal the importance of ethics to fulfilling communication's constructive

1
potential while addressing the myriad challenges associated with such efforts.

Key Elements of Ethical Communication

All communication—interpersonal, organizational, small group, mass mediated, political, informational,
technical, or commercial, whether delivered orally, electronically, verbally or nonverbally, visually, or through a
print medium— occurs within a context, including goals, means, and occasion. Ethical communication requires
understanding of and responsiveness to each of these three key elements. What one hopes to achieve through
the communication (the ends), how one chooses to communicate (the means), and the “real-world” outcomes
(the consequences) of communication are particularly important features of ethical communication.

Choice, Moral Agency, and Responsibility

Communication ethics is, first and foremost, about choice. To the extent an individual or group has options
available in any given situation, moral agency is at play. With moral agency—the relative freedom to choose
one's pathway in any given situation—comes responsibility.

Although circumstances often limit individuals' options, adults interacting with others usually have at least some
moral agency. When interacting with a friend or a close acquaintance, for example, people in diverse
circumstances are often relatively free to choose how attentively they will listen to the Other. How will they
respond to the Other's questions, concerns, insights, charges, and so on? Will they seek to manipulate the
Other to their personal advantage? Seek to gain the “upper hand”? Will they listen defensively? Or will they
seek to understand the Other? To connect with the Other? To foster the mutual pursuit of truth, insight,
wisdom, informed and just decision making with the Other?

In encounters with strangers, the decision of whether to recoil or to express hostility, on the one hand, or to
smile or otherwise express a sense of human connection, on the other, reflects elements of choice and hence of
responsibility to the Other as well. Numerous factors—from cultural norms, customs, and traditions to individual
preferences, abilities, genetic makeup, neurophysiology, and many other variables within and outside the
individual's control—influence how each person responds to the circumstances he or she confronts. Central to
the deliberative process across contexts, however, is the overall state of one's heart and mind.

In interpersonal communication settings, for example, each individual's approach is shaped by goals, values,
emotions, and perceptions. What does each party hope to achieve? How does each perceive the Other? What
are their perceptions of stakeholders' interests? What about their own values, beliefs, and vested interests? How
thoroughly has each considered the likely consequences of the interaction to the self, to others, and to the
relationship? Responses to these questions all involve elements of choice and reflect values, influenced
significantly by each participant's overall state of heart and mind.

Structural factors are relevant as well. People often find themselves in circumstances defined, at least in part,
by power structures beyond their control. Institutional structures are especially relevant. Consider, for example,
those situated at the “bottom” of a clearly defined corporate hierarchy. Even in such seemingly constrained
circumstances, the state of one's heart and mind is instrumental to the quality, efficacy, and ethics of one's
interactions. Individuals in such positions often have a much broader range of communicative options than
appears evident on the surface. Often, for example, even those with limited institutionally sanctioned power
have opportunities to facilitate transparency, to engender acts of loving-kindness, and to foster elements of just
and caring communion. How these individuals choose to respond to their circumstances often profoundly affects
the quality of the organizational environment.

This sense of quality relates directly to a second key feature of moral agency across communication contexts.
While the communicator's goals (the intentions or ends of communication) are important, so too are the means
communicators elect to use. Consider, for example, a situation in which one must decide how to respond when

2
a friend asks questions regarding her performance at a concert the previous evening. Suppose that a fully
truthful response could prove painful to the friend. There are many means available to avoid hurting the Other
in such circumstances. Among these means are lies or other more subtle forms of deception. For reasons to be
outlined later, however, these means are inherently ethically suspect. In contrast, pursuing compassionate and
caring means to sharing the information truthfully in such circumstances promises to foster connection, mutual
trust, respect, and understanding, thereby facilitating fulfillment of communication's constructive potential.

The centrality of means to ethical communication is especially evident in studies of social movements.
Historically, pursuits of social justice in the face of tyranny and oppression have taken many forms. Some
means— such as “random” violence, demonizing the Other, and hate speech—have been shown to be inherently
ethically suspect. Addressing this issue, prominent global leaders in the pursuit of social justice such as
Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, César Chavez, and Martin Luther King have noted that the means are the
ends in the making (Boss, 2003; Makau & Marty, 2001).

This discussion of means and ends leads to exploration of a third, related element of ethical communication:
The consequences of one's choices matter deeply. Thus far, the focus has been on “good” intentions and ethical
means. However, even the most noble intentions and ethical means have the potential to cause harm. Consider,
for example, the case of a journalist seeking to uncover abuses of power and using truthful means to convey
the information. In such a case, the journalist can be said to be using ethical means (conveying information
truthfully) in an effort to pursue noble ends (transparency, accountability, and justice). At the same time,
however, innocent people could be gravely imperiled as a result of the journalist's revelations, particularly if the
abuses uncovered by the story take place in an environment of “unchecked” power. Before publishing the story,
the journalist has the responsibility to consider the likely consequences of the publication, especially to the most
vulnerable members of the community.

Given the complexity of life's circumstances, predicting such consequences with certainty is impossible. The
responsibilities associated with moral agency do not require the ability to prophesize in this way. However,
responsible exercise of moral agency does require thoughtful consideration of the circumstances, particularly
from the standpoints of all relevant stakeholders; moral agents have a responsibility to anticipate likely
consequences as a part of their deliberations.

In sum, then, ethical communication across contexts requires attentiveness to at least the following: one's
intention, the means used to fulfill these ends, and the likely consequences of one's choices. Even within these
parameters, however, differentiating more or less ethical communication pathways is often difficult. Each set of
circumstances is unique, and often the most ethical choice is not readily apparent. A number of resources are
available to address these complexities.

General Guidelines for Ethical Communication

No set of rules or norms can provide certainty regarding the most ethical pathway in specific cases. Usually,
some measure of uncertainty is inevitable. However, people unable to make absolute decisions nevertheless
have the potential to make well-informed, ethical choices. General guidelines for ethical communication provide
tools for discerning more or less ethical pathways, assisting decision makers in their efforts to make responsible
choices.

The Principle of Veracity is illustrative. This principle provides resources for discerning whether, and how, to lie
or use other forms of deception in any given set of circumstances. Although the Principle cannot provide
certainty regarding this often difficult ethical choice, applying this general guideline to specific cases facilitates
responsible and wise discernment regarding available options.

Truth and Truthfulness

3
To understand the Principle of Veracity and its role in guiding communicative acts, it is important to distinguish
the pursuit of truth on the one hand and truthfulness on the other. The former is an important, but complex,
undertaking. The quest for truth takes many forms, from the pursuit of verifiable empirical knowledge regarding
the material world, on the one hand, to the search for deep transcendent insights and wisdom, on the other.
Beliefs of either kind that are held to be “true” by most people in a community during one era and in one
domain are often found to be “false” during another. The once widely held “flat earth” belief illustrates this
phenomenon. For many years, people throughout many regions of the world believed that the earth was flat.
Over time, however, evidence revealing the unreliability of that earlier view was widely disseminated. Most of
the world's population today rejects the idea that the earth is flat.

Truthfulness is closely related to such pursuits of truth. Among other things, the quest for truth depends on
peoples' truthfulness. Imagine, for example, if scientists and ruling authorities (including governmental agents)
around the world had chosen to deceive the public about scientific research revealing compelling evidence
against the “flat earth” thesis. Under these circumstances, humanity would not have benefited from the
scientific community's evolving insights regarding the earth's dimensions and shape.

Within today's globally interdependent world, the relationship of truthfulness to truth is especially critical. For
example, understanding of complex environmental issues—such as those associated with evidence of global
warming, land use and ownership policy issues, resource allocation issues, sustainability, energy policies, and so
on—requires access to scientifically verifiable information. Truthful representation of this information will be
instrumental to responsible and reasoned decision making.

At the same time, however, truthfulness in this and other contexts does not depend on humans' abilities to
arrive at definitive truths. It is possible, indeed critical, for people to be truthful even when they are confronted
with the possibility that their beliefs will one day be shown to be false. Truthfulness is not so much about the
capacity to know or to disseminate definitive truths but is rather a reflection of one's integrity. Communicators
who make every effort possible—relying on all available resources— to confirm the truth of their statements
before sharing their insights, who remain open to the possibility that they are wrong, and who convey only
information and insights they sincerely believe to be true at the time of their representations can be said to be
speaking truthfully, even if future inquiries reveal that their beliefs were mistaken.

The case of perjury illustrates the point further. Witnesses can be convicted of perjury only if it can be shown
that their false testimony was intentionally deceptive. The oath to “tell the truth” during a trial relates
exclusively to expressing what one believes to be true and not on what turns out to be verifiably the case.
District attorneys are especially aware of this distinction. The adage “eye witness accounts are both the most
compelling and the least reliable” sources of evidence at a trial underscores differences between truth on the
one hand and truthfulness on the other. Truthfulness is a necessary condition for judicial pursuits of truth and
justice. However, given the frailty of human perceptions, truthfulness by itself is not sufficient.

The Principle of Veracity

With this distinction in mind, the Principle of Veracity relates not so much to truth per se but rather to
truthfulness. According to this general guideline, although the use of deception is morally justified in some
special circumstances, truthfulness has moral presumption in its favor (Bok, 1999). The Principle provides four
discrete but related steps for discerning whether deception is morally justified in any given case.

Among the reasons why truthfulness has presumption in its favor across communication contexts are the
inherent risks associated with lying and other forms of deception. For example, the decision to deceive another
inevitably risks compromising the trust so critical to enduring relationships. Once undermined, trust is difficult to
restore. Similarly, deceiving another—either by lying or through more subtle forms of deception—threatens the
shared experience of respect at the heart of meaningful interpersonal connection. The use of deception, even for
the most noble of purposes, also risks undermining informed and reasoned decision making. From the
4
perspectives of the person being perceived and members of the broader community, these are potentially
significant harms. Additionally, when communicators choose to deceive, they risk compromising their own
personal integrity. Such compromises are potentially devastating, particularly over time. These inherent risks—
threats to trust, respect, sound decision making, the broader community's well-being, and personal integrity—
are but a few of the inevitable dangers associated with deception within and across communication contexts.

Yet those who choose to deceive others often overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms of their
decision. Focusing primarily on their “good intentions,” deceivers often persuade themselves that their actions
are morally justified. Taking thoughtful account of the inherent risks associated with deception—with particular
attention to the long-term consequences to the deceived, to the relationship, to one's integrity, and to the
broader community—helps mitigate this tendency. The Principle of Veracity provides resources to assist with
this process.

Four Steps for Moral Discernment

The first step of the Principle calls for consultation with one's conscience. Does the conscience—a particularly
valuable resource for ethical communication—provide a clear sense of moral direction in the case at hand? Does
the use of deception feel warranted by the circumstances? What are the “true” intentions underlying the
decision to deceive in this case? For example, is the primary goal pursuit of justice, fairness, care, or loving-
kindness? Or is the “true” intention to seek revenge, power over vulnerable others, or self-aggrandizement?
Above all, what is the overall state of heart and mind governing the deliberative process?

Following consultation with one's conscience, the Principle of Veracity calls for careful consideration of one's
available options. Are there viable truthful means available to fulfill the communicator's goals? Is it possible to
pursue the ends without using deception?

These first two steps are important and necessary to fulfillment of the Principle of Veracity. However, they are
not sufficient to justify the use of deception. The third required step is consultation with peers. When available,
people who share one's interests, values, and beliefs offer potentially valuable insights for ethical deliberation.
Consultations with people who are honest, thoughtful, forthright, and caring are especially helpful. If such peers
are not available, imagining their likely counsel will meet the third step of the Principle. More specifically, if
one's peers were made aware of all the relevant facts in the case, would they be likely to view the use of
deception in this case as ethically justified?

At this point, having checked in with one's conscience, assessed one's motives, sought truthful alternatives, and
consulted with one's peers, significant “checks” have been placed on the decision to deceive. Though fruitful,
however, these preliminary steps are not sufficient to overcome the burden of proof against deception. One's
conscience and peers, for example, often privilege one's own values and interests, leaving out critical insights
regarding the needs and interests of all stakeholders, as well as the likely long-term consequences to the
deceived and broader community. To attend thoughtfully to these important final features of ethical
communication, the Principle of Veracity provides a Test of Publicity.

This fourth, and final, step calls for exploration of the circumstances through a “shifting of perspective.” In
particular, the Test of Publicity requires exploration of how the deceived, those who share his or her values and
interests, and members of the broader community would be likely to view the case. If these parties had access
to all the available information, would they be likely to view the deception as morally justified? Would they view
deception in this case as potentially helpful to the individual, the relationship, and the community, both short-
and long-term? Would they find compelling evidence that no viable alternatives are available? If fully informed
of the circumstances, would they be likely to support the decision to deceive? Would they deem the act of
deception as morally justified?

The classic “placebo” case in medical practice serves to illustrate. Medical practitioners have long recognized the
5
powerful “healing” effect of “placebos.” Informing patients that they are receiving medicinal drugs has been
shown to benefit many patients, even when the “drug” is merely an inactive placebo without chemical healing
properties. In the past, many physicians have viewed the goal of providing patients a “placebo effect” as
justification for this form of deception. As a result, paternalistic deception—deceiving someone for their own
benefit—was once an accepted medical practice by many practitioners in the United States.

Applying the first three steps of the Principle of Veracity, physicians might well have concluded that this form of
paternalistic deception is morally justified. Good intentions, the lack of viable alternatives to achieve the
“placebo” healing effects, and counsel with peers (especially fellow physicians) would likely lead to such a
conclusion. Application of the fourth step, however, offers moral insights previously unavailable to these
decision makers.

During the past several decades, challenges by patients' rights groups have served this purpose. Patients'
advocates have raised issues such as the right to make informed choices regarding one's treatment. They have
noted further that when asked, most (though certainly not all) patients indicate that they would prefer not to be
lied to, even if they might experience “healing” benefits through the deception. Patients' rights groups have
spoken eloquently as well of the dangers “paternalistic lies” pose to the trust and respect so central to doctor-
patient relationships. Through their testimonies, these advocates have helped physicians consider the
communication context from the standpoint of the deceived.

The resulting revelations have led to changes in the professional association's code of conduct. Today,
physicians are admonished to avoid deception in most cases, even when the use of a paternalistic lie may serve
beneficent ends.

This approach to moral discernment—checking in with one's conscience, exploring available alternatives,
consulting one's peers, and applying the Test of Publicity— provides the foundation for the application of general
guidelines for ethical communication across contexts.

Moral Development and Ethical Communication

There is direct alignment between this foundation on the one hand and findings in moral development theory on
the other. For more than four decades, researchers exploring human moral development across cultural
boundaries have uncovered three different phases, each with their own discrete stages (Boss, 2004; Gilligan
1987; Jaksa & Pritchard, 1994; Kohlberg, 1987). In particular, they have found that during early development,
young children tend to view the world through an “egocentric” lens. As a rule, most toddlers demonstrate the
capacity for empathy. Most respond earnestly to others' apparent suffering and appear responsive to others'
demonstrated pleasures. However, they also tend to assume that everyone shares their perceptions and
experience and that it is their (and others') “responsibility” to privilege their interests.

Following this egocentric phase (often referred to as “preconventional”), children evolve to develop more
pressing concern for the well-being of others, particularly those within their own inner circle. Young people at
this phase also tend to share a desire to be a part of a group. They tend to seek connections, to pursue
meaningful relationships with others. They also tend to seek approval, especially from peers. At the same time,
they find value in communal rules, conventions, and guidelines. They embrace the concept of loyalty and
understand the importance of duty, especially to members of one's group. Their moral community—those whose
needs and interests they include in their moral deliberations—expands beyond just themselves to include family
members, friends, others within their village, tribe, or immediate group, as well as peers. During this phase—
often called “conventional”—young people also develop pronounced capacities for compassion and empathy.

The third phase of moral development generally begins in early adulthood and continues throughout the
remaining span of a person's life. Features of “postconventional development,” as this phase is called, include
the expansion of the moral community to include all members of the human family (and, for some, all sentient
6
beings) and a willingness and capacity to think critically about the short- and long-term consequences of one's
actions to all humanity. In this phase, pursuits of justice, fairness, and sound and reasoned decisions become
routine. Other qualities marking “postconventional” moral development include responsiveness to others and to
diverse circumstances with compassion, care, love, humility, moral courage, generosity, kindness, integrity, and
truthfulness. The concepts of loyalty and duty remain important but tend to be associated with transcendent
commitments (beyond narrow understandings of moral community). Although “authority” has a place during
this phase, postconventional moral reasoning takes on a more heteronymous character. Decision making is
based on thoughtful, careful, independent assessment of available information rather than on the appraisals of
“authoritative” others.

This last feature of postconventional reasoning is often associated with development of what are called
“intellectual virtues.” Among these are the willingness and ability to think critically; to avoid fallacies; to pursue
reasoned and just decision making; to embrace diversity of perspective, intellectual humility, love of learning,
and, in general, an openness of heart and mind.

Reversibility, Ethical Communication, and the “Golden Rule”

The resources explored thus far rest on several assumptions shared widely by students of communication
ethics. The underlying assumption that “reversibility” is a prerequisite for moral justification is one such
assumption. This concept derives from the related belief, reflected throughout this chapter, that communicating
ethically requires attentiveness and regard for the needs and interests of others as well as one's own.

This precept provides a foundation for most approaches to communication ethics. There are a number of
sources for this shared assumption. Perhaps the most widely known across diverse religious, spiritual, and
secular philosophical traditions is a principle often referred to as the “Golden Rule.”

Among the iterations of this ancient guideline, perhaps the most well-known among secularists in the West is
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Within the Christian faith tradition, the guideline is
articulated in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew as follows: “In everything, do to others as you would have
them do to you: for this is the law of the prophets.” The Prophet Mohammed of the Islamic faith tradition is
cited as saying, “Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.” The Buddha
is recorded as having admonished followers to “treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”
Within the Hindu faith tradition, the guideline appears as follows: “This is the sum of duty: Do not do to others
what would cause pain if done to you.” Confucius is said to have told his followers, “One word which sums up
the basis for all good conduct … loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.”
Within the Zoroastrianism faith tradition, the guideline is shared as follows: “Do not do unto others whatever is
injurious to yourself.” Judaism's Talmud teaches the following: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your
neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go learn it.” In the Baha'i faith, followers are
admonished to “lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the
things you would not desire for yourself.”

These iterations of the Golden Rule reflect strong, shared, cross-cultural commitment to reversibility as a key
element of moral justification. At the same time, however, application of the guideline is not without difficulty.
The discussion below will highlight both common ground and the special challenges associated with its
application in specific contexts.

Common Ground
Most people, regardless of their backgrounds, experiences, or beliefs, share a need to be loved. Most wish to
avoid suffering and want to be happy. Most prefer the experience of loving kindness to meanness, and most
want to experience peace in their daily lives. Most wish peace for their loved ones and for the broader
community. And most relish the prospect of mutual respect and understanding.
7
Apart from these generally shared traits, much of the human family shares a set of values across cultural
boundaries as well. Several of these beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, what is more or less
important can be found in the International Declaration for Human Rights. This document was first adopted by
the international community in December 1948. In a celebration 50 years later, the United Nations General
Assembly reaffirmed the Declaration. Among the core values expressed in this document are the “inherent
dignity” and the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” The document's Preamble
identifies these values as the foundations of “freedom, justice, and peace in the world.” Article 1 adds that all
“are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Scholars (Bok, 1995; Boss, 2004; Christians & Traber, 1997; Johannesen, 2002; West, 1994) have identified
related shared values and traits. Among these are commitments to empathy, compassion, truthfulness, human
dignity, loving kindness, solidarity with others—particularly those who are vulnerable, love, justice, fairness,
respect, moral courage, humility, and care.

For deliberative purposes, ethical communication takes these values as starting points. Authentic appeals to
love, justice, fairness, respect, dignity and care, for example, hold the status of presumption, comparable with
the role of truthfulness in ethical communication explored earlier in this chapter. In contrast, appeals to
prejudice, intolerance, hatred, injustice, and fear of the Other require compelling justification through the use of
the four steps outlined in the earlier discussion of the Principle of Veracity. Similarly, the use of communication
to manipulate (especially to pursue ethically suspect ends) requires compelling justification. Application of all
four steps, including the Test of Publicity, is required to justify strategic manipulation.

In these ways, general guidelines such as the Principle of Veracity and the Golden Rule provide valuable
resources for those seeking to communicate ethically. At the same time, however, beyond such broad, generally
shared common grounds, people cannot assume that others share their particular interests, values, beliefs, or
dreams. This realization of difference is one of the most compelling challenges to the concept of reversibility at
the heart of such general guidelines. As Seyla Benhabib (1992), Anthony Appiah (2006), Amin Maalouf (2000),
and other scholars have noted, difference is one of humanity's defining qualities.

Reversibility and Difference

Despite much common ground, diverse cultures have differences from one another. Some of these differences
are deep, for example, potentially competing conceptions of the “good.” While one group may privilege the
individual's interests, needs, and rights, another privileges the needs and interests of the community. While one
group embraces a particular spiritual text as authoritative, another rejects the same text. While one group
privileges rights to property ownership, another finds the concept of land ownership mystifying.

World religions are especially illustrative. On the one hand, monotheistic faith traditions such as Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam share many beliefs and values. On the other, however, differences between these groups
have been associated with violence and warfare.

Even groups sharing common religious affiliation often disagree sharply. Within the Christian faith tradition, for
example, conflicts between Catholics and Protestants have led to violence and warfare and continue to pose
significant challenges for the faithful. Similarly, conflicts between different Muslim sects have led to violence and
warfare throughout regions in which large numbers of people embrace the faith tradition.

Apart from divisions both within and across cultural groups, individuals within each group have unique sets of
characteristics and experiences. Even people who appear to share close bonds—such as genetic or familial links,
socioeconomic ties, shared religious affiliation, similar age, shared ethnicity, race, gender, affectional
orientation, physical abilities and limitations, intellectual skills, or other important features of personal identity—
are nevertheless “different” from one another. Each individual is distinctive, with a particular constellation of
material and philosophical characteristics shaping his or her personal identity. These distinctions help inform
8
each person's life's experiences, which in turn help shape the individual's unique perceptual lens and associated
values, beliefs, interests, and needs.

Given such differences among “concrete” others, the admonition to “do unto others what you would have them
do unto you” encumbers special responsibilities. Most important, ethical communication requires insight into the
particular needs, interests, values, and beliefs of the Other; the ethical call to reversibility requires
understanding of and responsiveness to the Other on his or her own terms. This is an essential underlying
mandate of the reversibility requirement, when understood contextually.

A related theme is recognition of and responsiveness to the role of standpoint in communication. This concept
combines features of identity with relevant power dynamics. Consider, for example, a university classroom
context. The professor is vested with the hierarchical authority to “manage” the classroom, facilitate learning,
assess and grade student performance, assign tasks, and so on. Within the classroom “hierarchy,” the
professor's institutionally vested power is manifest. Yet outside the context of the classroom, there are a
number of officials whose hierarchical authority takes precedence over the professor's. Among these are the
college dean, the vice president of Academic Affairs, the university president, the system chancellor, the board
of trustees, and so on. In this sense, the professor's hierarchical status shifts from context to context.

At the same time, however, the professor's identity also plays an evolving role in the power dynamic. Race,
ethnicity, gender, age, physical traits, and other defining features of personal identity help shape the relations
of power between professor and student in the classroom, as well as between “ruling” authorities throughout
the university hierarchy.

A further key factor shaping the context is how power is negotiated in diverse settings. For example, some
professors adopt pedagogical strategies designed to enhance students' authority over their own educations.
Learning- centered instructional paradigms feature such shifting power dynamics. Similarly, some college
administrators reject the “sovereign power” paradigm in which authorities routinely (and sometimes arbitrarily)
exercise “power over” others and embrace instead a “mutual power” paradigm, in which people are provided
opportunities and resources to share “power with” one another. Given these diverse understandings and
exercises of power dynamics, simply identifying a person's “official” status within an organizational structure
does not fully account for the individual's “standpoint” in a particular context. Ethical communication requires
mindfulness of these evolving elements of standpoint and their role within particular communication contexts.
Dialogic virtues and skills provide resources for attending thoughtfully to these and other dynamic features of
communication across contexts.

Dialogic Virtues and Skills

Dialogue differs from other forms of communication in its responsiveness to the Other. Rather than
communicating at, to, or for another, dialogue is characterized by communicating with others.

Ethical and effective dialogue requires several skills. Among the most important are attentive listening abilities.
Communication is often thwarted by human tendencies to judge, to blame, or to defend in response to others.
Whether in communication within intimate relationships or in interactions with strangers, this narrow pattern of
response fosters defensiveness and inhibits the possibility of mutual understanding.

In contrast, the art of listening nondefensively opens possibilities for dialogic connection. Developing the habit
of listening to understand fosters conditions for learning from and with others, for deliberating well together,
and for building community.

There are at least three other dialogic virtues and related skills required to meet the Other on his or her own
terms: keeping an open mind and heart, balanced partiality, and critical self-awareness.

9
Often, the willingness and ability to approach communication with an open mind and heart is confused with a
kind of passivity, pursuit of “pure objectivity,” or lack of passion for one's point of view. Importantly, however,
these characteristics are neither required nor even helpful to ethical and effective dialogue. Without passion and
personal commitment, for example, exchanges have little meaning. Without mutual recognition of the values
and interests inevitably underlying each participant's point of view, interactions are unlikely to foster mutual
understanding and informed decision making. Balanced partiality—the dedicated and caring commitment to
fairness—helps participants acknowledge their own and others' partiality without compromising their
receptiveness to others' perspectives.

Similarly, critical self-awareness—the process of acknowledging and recognizing how our standpoints influence
our perspectives, as well as how others see us—is vital to ethical and effective dialogue.

Finally, the capacity to imagine the experiences and sensibilities of others is critical to ethical decision making.
Seyla Benhabib (1991) and Martha Nussbaum (1997) are among the many scholars whose work has revealed
the importance of developing the habit of representing to oneself the many perspectives, layers of meaning, and
viewpoints constituting any particular set of circumstances. Development of one's moral imagination, as this
capacity is often called, requires both willingness and an ability to challenge one's “self-centered perspective.”
Receptiveness of and responsiveness to the diversity and multiplicity of perspectives characteristic of the human
family are especially helpful. As noted earlier, the Test of Publicity provides a particularly fruitful resource for
attending thoughtfully to this facet of ethical decision making.

In summary, ethical communication requires a diversity of dispositional traits, intellectual virtues, and related
dialogic virtues and skills. These resources have always been important. However, special challenges and
opportunities unique to 21st-century contexts make them all the more compelling.

21st-Century Challenges and Opportunities

Never before have people from such richly diverse backgrounds, representing different interests, potentially
competing values and beliefs, and distinctive ways of knowing, encountered one another so routinely. People
around the world today cross cultural boundaries as a matter of course. More than 200 million people live and
work away from their ancestral homes, in close proximity to people from culturally diverse backgrounds.
Through the Internet and other communication technologies, vast reserves of information and widely divergent
perspectives are delivered to people from richly diverse backgrounds across the globe each day as well.

These circumstances hold unparalleled promise for mutual growth and enlightenment. Sharing ideas and
experiences with one another enables people to question their assumptions and achieve heightened awareness
of issues from multiple standpoints, facilitates the “shifting of perspective” at the heart of ethical
communication, and otherwise enriches possibilities for reasoned and just decision making. In these ways,
communication in today's world holds great promise for fulfilling its creative and constructive potential.

At the same time, however, numerous challenges confront humanity at the dawn of this new era. As Ellul
(1964), Jonas (1984), Christians (2007), and others have shown, technologies tend to create their own
imperatives. People using communication technologies, for example, often succumb to a kind of
instrumentalism, in which “efficiency” is privileged at the expense of relationships, connection, dignity, freedom,
and other core values. Surveillance and control, manipulation, and power over others often take precedence
when people using technologies acquiesce to this tendency. As machines become more and more sophisticated,
it is likely that these risks will become increasingly manifest.

Similarly, although the power and ubiquity of mass communication creates valuable opportunities to foster
shared understanding, to facilitate peace, to achieve justice, and to otherwise serve humanity, their ubiquity
creates vulnerability to abuse as well. As control of news sources becomes increasingly driven by commercial
interests in service to the few at the expense of the many, for example, access to reliable information may
10
prove increasingly difficult. Similarly, speed of information transmission prevents the kind of scrutiny and
reflection once considered hallmarks of sound reporting. Enhanced tools for manipulating messages pose
additional challenges, undermining the ability to discern differences between “truthful” dissemination of
information on the one hand and propaganda on the other. At the same time, sharp (and growing) disparities
between the “haves” and “have-nots,” characteristic of today's global economy, will likely exacerbate these and
related risks.

Given these circumstances, explorations of how communications technologies and other forms of media are
used— the interests they serve, the messages they convey, the consequences of these messages, and their
underlying values—will prove critical to humanity's long-term well-being.

In sum, communication in today's globally interdependent world has both extraordinarily creative and
devastatingly harmful potential. In such an environment, the relationship of communication to ethics takes on
special importance. Discerning more or less ethical pathways for communication in any given context will prove
key to meaningful relationships, to responsible participation in the global economy, to the understanding and
resolution of complex social and political issues, and to responsive civic engagement. The core values, virtues,
skills, and related resources explored in this chapter are designed to equip individuals and groups for this
dynamic and vital undertaking.

—Josina M. Makau

References and Further Readings

Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers . New York: W. W. Norton

Aristotle. (1967). Art of rhetoric (J. H. Freese, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Arneson, P. (2007). Exploring communication ethics: Interviews with influential scholars in the field. New York:
Peter Lang

Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics.
NewYork: Routledge

Bok, S. (1995). Common values. Columbia: University of Missouri Press

Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage Books

Bok, S. (2002). Common values. Columbia: University of Missouri Press

Boss, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). Perspectives on ethics (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill

Boss, J. A. (2004). Ethics for life (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill

Bracci, S. L. , ed. , & Christians, C. G. (Eds.). (2002). Moral engagement in public life: Theorists for
contemporary ethics. New York: Peter Lang

Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. New York: Touchtone Press

Christians, C. Communication ethics and peace. Media Development vol. 54 no. (3) pp. 40–44. (2007).

Christians, C. , ed. , & Traber, M. (Eds.). (1997). Communication ethics and universal values. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage

11
Cisneros, S. (1998). “A woman of no consequence: Una mujer cualqueira.” In C. Trujillo (Ed.), Living Chicana
theory (pp. 78–86). Berkeley, CA: Third Woman Press

Coretese, A. (1990). Ethnic ethics: The restructuring of moral theory. New York: State University of New York
Press

Dalai, Lama (1999). Ethics for a new millennium. New York: Riverhead Books

Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society (John Wilkenson, Trans.). New York: Knopf

Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press

Gilligan, C. (1987). Moral orientations and moral development. In E. F. Kittay, ed. & D. T. Meyers (Eds.),
Women and moral theory (pp. 19–33). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield

Jaksa, J. A. , & Prichard, M. S. (1994). Communication ethics: Methods of analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth

Johannesen, R. L. (2002). Ethics in human communication (5th ed.) Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland

Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of ethics in a technological age. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press

Jonsen, A. , & Toulmin, S. (1988). The abuse of casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press

Kohlberg, L. (1987). Child psychology and childhood education: A cognitive developmental view. New York:
Longman

Maalouf, A. (2000). In the name of identity: Violence and the need to belong. New York: Penguin Books

Makau, J. M. , ed. , & Arnett, R. C. (Eds.). (1997). Communication ethics in an age of diversity. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press

Makau, J. M. , & Marty, D. L. (2001). Cooperative argumentation: A model for deliberative community. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of
California Press

Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press

Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press

Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: Renewing the anthropologist's search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press

Singer, P. (1980). Practical ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

West, C. (1994). Race matters. New York: Vintage Books

Wood, J. T. (1994). Who cares? Women, care, and culture. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press

Entry Citation:
Makau, Josina M. "Ethical and Unethical Communication." 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. Ed. . Thousand
12
Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009. 433-44. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 2 Jul. 2012.

© SAGE Publications, Inc.

Brought to you by: SAGE

13