2.2 Nature of Ethics

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (1963), the word “ethics” is derived from the Greek ethos or the nature or disposition of a culture. Ethics is further characterized as both a field of study concerned with moral principles and the moral principles that govern or influence human behavior. Parhizgar and Parhizgar (2006) define ethics as the:

…critical analysis of cultural values to determine the validity of their vigorous rightness or wrongness in terms of two major criteria: truth and justice. Ethics is examining the relation of an individual to society, to the nature, and or to God. How do people make ethical decisions? They are influenced by how they perceive themselves in relation to goodness and/or excellence. (p. 77)

Based on this definition, the study of ethics is “concerned with cultural value systems that are operable, either with intending to do something or actually doing something in the realm of goodness” (Parhizgar & Parhizgar, 2006, p. 77). As we shall see in this chapter, making this determination of “goodness” is not always black and white. To help illustrate this point, we will now examine four scenarios:

1. In an effort to win a new client for your business, you deliver a presentation about how your business is more suited for the client than your competitors. You develop a well-honed argument based on the facts at hand. Ultimately, your business is able to really help the client expand her or his market share.
2. In an effort to win a new client for your business, you lie to a prospective client during a presentation. The client is impressed with your presentation and decides to sign a contract with your business. Unfortunately, the lying catches up with you and you end up doing the client more harm than good and the client starts to lose part of her or his market share.
3. In an effort to win a new client for your business, you lie to a prospective client during a presentation. The client is impressed with your presentation and decides to sign a contract with your business. Even though you lied to your client, your business is ultimately able to really help the client expand her or his market.
4. In an effort to win a new client for your business, you deliver a presentation about how your business is more suited for the client than your competitors. You develop a well-honed argument based on the facts at hand. After the client signs a contract with your business, you discover that one of your competitors is better suited for the client’s specific interests. Ultimately, your business ends up doing your client more harm than good and the client starts to lose part of her or his market share.

When examining these four ethical scenarios, you’ll notice that each scenario can be broken down into two clear parts: means and ends. According to McCroskey, Wrench, and Richmond (2003) “means” are the tools or behaviors that one employs to achieve a desired outcome, and “ends” are those outcomes that one desires to achieve. Both “means” and “ends” can be evaluated as either good or bad. Remember, the definition of ethics by Parhizgar and Parhizgar (2006) involves the intention to behave or actual behavior in the realm of goodness. McCroskey (2006) takes the idea of ethics one step further and explains that examining the intent of the behavior is only half of the ethical equation. McCroskey believes that examining the “goodness” of the outcome of the behavior is also important when examining ethics. McCroskey’s (2006) ethical frame work, which was later expanded upon by McCroskey, Wrench, and Richmond (2003), can be seen as the combination of “good vs. bad means” and “good vs. bad ends” (Figure 2.1). – ETHICAL MATRIX IMAGE

Good Means – Good End – Ethical Behavior

The first ethical dilemma discussed earlier is an example of a “good” mean leading to a “good” end, or what is termed ethical behavior in the ethical matrix. In this case, the presenter developed a clear argument based on facts in an attempt to persuade a client (mean). As a result of signing on with the presenter’s company, the client increased her or his share of the market (end). In essence, the presenter had a good mean (persuasive argument) that lead to a good end (increased market share). Behavior that contains both a good mean and a good end is considered ethical behavior.

Bad Means – Bad End – Unethical Behavior

In the second ethical dilemma, we have an example of a “bad” mean leading to a “bad” end, or what is termed unethical behavior in the ethical matrix. Specifically, in order to gain business, the presenter lied to the client (mean). Unfortunately, after the client was duped into signing with the presenter’s company, the client lost part of the market share he or she had before getting involved with the presenter’s company (end). In this case, the presenter had a bad mean (lied to client) that lead to a bad end (decreased market share). When a bad mean leads to a bad end, the behavior is considered unethical.

The first two quadrants in the ethical matrix are obvious and are easily discerned in the world of business. Often times, however, determining the ethical nature of behavior is not as clear as the first two examples. The next two examples provide the last two variations of means and ends combinations.

Bad Means – Good End – Machiavellian Ethic

In the third example, there was a “bad” mean that lead to a “good” end, or what is termed the Machiavellian ethic in the ethical matrix. In this case, the presenter purposefully lied to the client in an effort to sign the client. After the client signed with the presenter’s business, the client’s share of the market increased. Here we have a situation where there was a bad mean (lied to client) that lead to a good end (increased market share). When a bad mean leads to a good end, we refer to this as the Machiavellian ethic. According to Wrench, Thomas- Maddox, Richmond, and McCroskey (2008), the term “Machiavellian ethic” derives its name from:

…Niccolò Machiavelli [who] believed that the ends justify the means. Machiavelli’s greatest work, The Prince, written in 1513, created much controversy because Machiavelli wrote that princes should retain absolute control of their lands and should use any means necessary to accomplish this end, including deceit. This notion was so outlandish that Pope Clement VIII described it as heretical. (pp. 27–28).

Some ethicists claim that a bad mean is always unethical while others claim that the end result is what matters when determining the goodness of a behavior.

Good Means – Bad End – Subjective Ethic

In the final ethical scenario, there was a “good” mean that lead to a “bad” end. In this case, the presenter developed a clear argument based on facts in an attempt to persuade a client (mean), or what is termed the subjective ethic in the ethical matrix. Unfortunately, after the client signed with the presenter’s company, the client lost part of the market share he or she had before getting involved with the presenter’s company (end). When a good mean (well-honed argument) leads to a bad end (decreased market share), we refer to this as the subjective ethic. This specific ethical stance is deemed “subjective” because the intent of the presenter is ultimately only known to the presenter. In essence, under the subjective ethic, there are two possible implications. In one case, the presenter used a perfectly good mean (well-honed and honest argument) to sign the client and then purposefully decreased the client’s market share; whereas in the second case the presenter used a good mean and the subsequent decreased market share was an unintended outcome. In the first case there is evidence of malice on the part of the presenter, and in the second case there are uncontrollable outcomes.

While a discussion of means and ends is a helpful way to frame ethical thoughts, there are many philosophical traditions that have explored the nature of ethics. Table 2.2 lists eleven major philosophical perspectives used to determine what is and what is not ethical.

The eleven philosophical traditions discussed in Table 2.2 help to illustrate how varied the perspectives on ethics have been by various philosophical thinkers (Lewis & Speck, 1990). Unfortunately, there is not one clear determination for what is or what is not ethical. The rest of this chapter will focus on three contexts where ethical thought has been applied: business, human communication, and organizational communication.

References:

McCroskey, J. C. (2006). An introduction to rhetorical communication: A Western rhetorical perspective (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McCroskey, J. C., Wrench, J. S., & Richmond, V. P. (2003). Principles of public speaking. Indianapolis, IN: The College Network.

Parhizgar, K. D., & Parhizgar, R. (2006). Multicultural business ethics and global managerial moral reasoning. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

The Oxford English Dictionary. (1963). Oxford, Britain: At the Clarendon Press.

Wrench, J. S., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2008). Quantitative methods for communication researchers: A hands on approach. New York: Oxford University Press.