Human Rational Capacity
Aristotle's view of human nature, as interpreted and applied by Lawrence Flynn, provides one perspective for evaluating the ethics of communication. Aristotle, according to Flynn, emphasized the capacity for reason as a uniquely human attribute, (Note that the stress on reason here is related more to human nature than to the values central to any particular political system, such as in Haiman's "degree of rationality" approach. A truly human act, from Aristotle's viewpoint, stems from a rational person who is conscious of what he or she does and freely chooses to do it. The ethics of communication are judged by the interrelated criteria of (1) communicator intent, (2) nature of the means employed, and (3) accompanying circumstances, as these three factors combine to enhance or undermine human rationality and choice-making ability, While Aristotle apparently held some human actions to be unethical inherently, other human behaviors depend for their ethicality on the above mentioned criteria. But Aristotle did reject the notion that the end justifies the means when the means is unethical. Thus, a worthy end or intent would not justify the use of unethical communicative means.
A much more recent interpretation of Aristotle's ethical standards for rhetoric is provided by Robert Rowland and Deanna Womack. Their analysis of Aristotle's Rhetoric, Nicomachean Ethics, and Politics leads them to refute as partial and over-simplified the view that Aristotle advocated the use of rational appeals only and condemned as unethical any use of emotional or non-logical appeals. Also they question the interpretation that claims Aristotle took a stance wherein achievement of effect is paramount and any emotional appeals that might promote success are approved.
According to Rowland and Womack, Aristotle did assume that the capacity for rationality is a deciding characteristic of humans and thus a necessary part of rhetoric, but Aristotle also recognized the emotional nature of humans and believed that emotional appeal is necessary to motivate humans to good actions. Logic by itself normally will not energize people to act. Emotional appeal by itself risks becoming extreme in intensity, thus undercutting the role of reason, Especially ethically suspect are appeals to our "vegetative appetites" such as sex and food. In contrast, other emotions, such as fear or anger, involve cognitive, reflective, responses to situations and thus re more susceptible to the influence of reason. Both reason and emotion can be used unethically, Deceptive practices, whether logical or emotional, are unethical for Aristotle because, in Rowland and Womack's words, "reason cannot function without accurate information,"
As an art or theory of discovering all available means of persuasion for a given situation, rhetoric is morally neutral in Aristotle's view, but as application or practice, rhetoric becomes in varying degrees either ethical or unethical, In Rowland and Womack's interpretation of Aristotle, ethical rhetoric as practice represents a mean between the extremes of pure logic on the one hand and of irrational appeals to our animal instincts, to nonreflective emotional states, or to harmful passions on the other hand, Their interpretation would seem to point toward an Aristotelian ethic for rhetoric summarized as follows: The sound, relevant, integrated use of both reason and emotion in the service of practical wisdom and the general public good.
Thomas Garrett argues that a person becomes more truly human in proportion to his or her behavior becoming more conscious and reflective. Because of the human capacity for reason and
because of the equally distinctive fact of human dependence on other people for development of potential, Garrett suggests there are several ethical obligations for advertisers. As humans we are obliged, among other things, to behave rationally ourselves, to help others behave rationally, and to provide truthful information, Suggestive advertising, in Garrett's view, is that which seeks to bypass human powers of reason or to some degree render them inoperative, Such advertising is unethical not just because it uses emotional appeal, feels Garrett, but because it demeans a fundamental human attribute and makes people less than human.
Should perspectives stressing human rational capacity be applied in judging the ethics of advertising and public relations? Why or why not? What are some examples of advertisements or sales approaches that clearly seem to be ethical (or unethical) when evaluated by this perspective?
(Edited from Johannesen, Richard L. Ethics in Human Communication, 5th ed. Waveland, Press, 2002. p 39ff.)
Department of Communication, Seton Hall University