Presentation on theme: "Challenge yourselves to… Combat that most public communication is inherently untrustworthy anything automatically without evaluation Analyze! Evaluate!"— Presentation transcript:
Challenge yourselves to… Combat that most public communication is inherently untrustworthy anything automatically without evaluation Analyze! Evaluate!
Moralities in Democracy to Develop Habit of – Know the topic on which you speak! – Can I answer squarely, without evasion, any relevant question a receiver might ask? Habit of – Select & present fact & opinion fairly – In selecting and presenting my materials, am I giving my audience the opportunity to make fair judgments? Habit of preference for over motivations – Reveal sources so we can assess bias – Have I concealed info about sources or my own motives that, if revealed, would damage my case? Habit of – Allow & encourage diversity of opinion/argument – Face conflict instead of accepting appeasement – Can I freely admit the force of opposing evidence/argument and still advocate my convictions?
Haimans (1958) Degree of Rationality Perspective Emphasizes allowing for receivers Anything that relies on automatic, non-reflective responses in humans is – Emotional appeals used to persuade = – Current day examples? Later adjusted his perspective to accept emotional use in protest rhetoric/confrontation
Consider…. Do all emotional appeals short-circuit human logical reasoning processes? How easy is it to label an appeal as either logical or emotional? What are examples of both logical and emotional appeals used together in one argument?
Situational Perspectives No Absolutes! No Universals!
B. J. Diggs Persuasive/Compliance-Gaining Settings 1. to speak? 2. to speak? 3. used? 4. in goals? 5. given?
Fletchers Christian Perspective Specific situations should be analyzed… but… There is one absolute!
J. Dan Rothwell Social protest rhetoric Incite,, & Eight Reasons why should be ok: 1.Traditional methods 2.Some dont have 3.Establishment 4.Establishment 5.Traditional modes might mask/perpetuate 6.Some lack facility to express their experiences 7.Traditional modes emphasize reasoning – may not apply to issues today 8.Traditional modes force negotiation/
Social Utility Approach to Utilitarianism William S. Howell To be used in public & private contexts To be used within cultures and between cultures Stresses usefulness to people affected & survival potential for groups involved Ethical communication: – most involved, with – Minimum to individuals – Terms are – Universal standards are
Social Utility Approach (cont.) Six Criteria for useful & workable systems of communication ethics: 1.System protects fabric of culture – preserves basic cultural assumptions 2.Communicator/Communicatee equally responsible 3.Must be pragmatic (workable) & idealistic (desirable) 4.Sensitivity to gap between words & actions 5.Acceptance of relativity/context in application of ethics 6.Social utility is standard considered in every ethical decision!
Hooks (1954) Ground Rules to Analyze Ethicality of Controversial Public Issues 1.Nothing and no one is immune from criticism 2.Anyone involved in controversy has intellectual responsibility to inform self of facts 3.Criticism should first be directed at policies. Direct at people only when responsible for policies. Direct at motives only when there is independent evidence of their character, not derived from consequences of their policies 4.Legally permissible words morally permissible 5.Before judging motives, answer their arguments 6.Dont treat policy opponents as personal enemies of country or democracy 7.Since good causes can be defended by bad arguments, after answering those args, present positive evidence for own position 8.Dont hesitate to admit lack of knowledge or to suspend judgment if info indecisive either way 9.Can only demonstrate the impossible in pure logic/math – not in human affairs. Logical possibility probability. Evidence of probabilities must include more than abstract possibilities 10.When looking for truth of fact/wisdom of policy, never refuse to discuss or take action that blocks discussion, particularly when violent