1. Ethics

2. What is “ethics”? Branch of philosophy that deals with issues of right and wrong. Branch of philosophy that deals with issues of right and wrong. Concerned with moral issues such as honesty, fairness, just, etc. Concerned with moral issues such as honesty, fairness, just, etc. A speaker’s character is being judged. A speaker’s character is being judged. Quintilian says that speechmaking is the “good person speaking well”. Quintilian says that speechmaking is the “good person speaking well”.

4. Five sources of ethical standards: Utilitarian approach Utilitarian approach Rights approach Rights approach Fairness or Justice approach Fairness or Justice approach Common good approach Common good approach Virtue approach Virtue approach Putting the approaches together. Putting the approaches together.

5. Guidelines for speaking ethical Make sure your speaking goals are ethical. Make sure your speaking goals are ethical. Be fully prepared for each speech. Be fully prepared for each speech. Be honest in what you say. Be honest in what you say. Avoid name calling and abusive language. Avoid name calling and abusive language. Put ethical principles in practice. Put ethical principles in practice. Use a large amount of sources. Use a large amount of sources. Distinguish between quotes and paraphrases. Distinguish between quotes and paraphrases.

6. Plagiarism Plagiarism is “presenting another person’s language or ideas as one’s own. Plagiarism is “presenting another person’s language or ideas as one’s own. Three types of plagiarism: Three types of plagiarism: Global plagiarism: taking am entire speech from “one” source. Global plagiarism: taking am entire speech from “one” source. Patchwork: copying verbatim from two or three sources. Patchwork: copying verbatim from two or three sources. Incremental: copying verbatim specific parts or increments. Incremental: copying verbatim specific parts or increments.

7. Argumentative Dishonesty Advancing false conclusions. Advancing false conclusions. Intentionally using old evidence. Intentionally using old evidence. Using unreliable sources. Using unreliable sources. Concealing available evidence. Concealing available evidence. Twisting or distorting evidence. Twisting or distorting evidence. Fabricating information. Fabricating information. Using inferior evidence. Using inferior evidence.

8. Arguer Orientations: Wayne Brockriede published an article in the 1970’s called “Arguers as lovers”. Wayne Brockriede published an article in the 1970’s called “Arguers as lovers”. He proposed that arguer orientations can be framed as (abuser)“rapist”, “seducer”, or “lovers”. He proposed that arguer orientations can be framed as (abuser)“rapist”, “seducer”, or “lovers”.

9. The arguer as “Rapist”(abuser) Depersonalizes the other. Depersonalizes the other. Relies on verbal aggressiveness. (name calling, ad hominems, etc.. ) Relies on verbal aggressiveness. (name calling, ad hominems, etc.. ) Uses force, authority, sanctions. Uses force, authority, sanctions. Employs threats, ultimatums. Employs threats, ultimatums. An example: poor litigants vs. large corporations. An example: poor litigants vs. large corporations.

10. The Arguer as “Seducer” Relies on harm, beguilement, trickery. Relies on harm, beguilement, trickery. Creates an illusion of choice. Creates an illusion of choice. Utilizes ingratiation strategies. Utilizes ingratiation strategies. Resorts to deception. Resorts to deception. Employs illicit reasoning (false reasoning, withholding evidence, etc.) Employs illicit reasoning (false reasoning, withholding evidence, etc.)

11. “Rapists” and “Seducers” as Arguers Displays disregard for the other person. Displays disregard for the other person. Views other as an “object” or “target” rather than as a person. Views other as an “object” or “target” rather than as a person. Emphasizes success, de-emphasizes relationships. Emphasizes success, de-emphasizes relationships. Unwilling to expose oneself to the risk of change. Unwilling to expose oneself to the risk of change. Adopts only one perspective on a issue—one’s own. Adopts only one perspective on a issue—one’s own.

12. Arguers as “Lovers” Regards other as an equal, stresses power parity. Regards other as an equal, stresses power parity. Values the relationship as much as (if not more than) the outcome of decision. Values the relationship as much as (if not more than) the outcome of decision. Emphasizes cooperation and collaboration over competition. Emphasizes cooperation and collaboration over competition. Values shared decision making, choice making. Values shared decision making, choice making. Willing to risk values, knowledge, and self- esteem by engaging in argument. Willing to risk values, knowledge, and self- esteem by engaging in argument.

13. Conclusions: The categories aren’t mutually exclusive, they are a matter of degree. The categories aren’t mutually exclusive, they are a matter of degree. The categories are situational and contextual. The categories are situational and contextual. A person can change his or her orientation to arguing. A person can change his or her orientation to arguing.

14. Six Pillars of Character Trustworthiness Trustworthiness Respect Respect Responsibility Responsibility Fairness Fairness Caring Caring Citizenship Citizenship Taken from Michael Josephson (KNX) Taken from Michael Josephson (KNX)

15. Ethical guidelines for listeners Be courteous and attentive! Be courteous and attentive! Avoid prejudging. Avoid prejudging. Keep an open mind. Keep an open mind.