Ethical Theories in Persuasion

Last week I blogged about conflict and effective ways to communicate.  My next few posts are going to talk a little about persuasion, starting with ethical theories and persuasion.  Below is a paper that I wrote to discuss a couple of ethical theories.  I hope you find it useful.

When considering whether ethical behavior is significant to persuasion, we must first define ethical in regards to persuasion.  According to Seiter et al (2004, p. 5) “…persuasion is generally more ethical when people are made aware that they are being influenced and when they have unconditional freedom to say “no” to influence attempts.”  That being said, ethical behavior during persuasion is critical to gaining trust and credibility with your audience; although, some ethical theories allow for selfish motives and can be detrimental to persuasion with certain audiences.  This paper will discuss the psychological consistency persuasion theories, and the ethical theories of egoism and utilitarianism and the impact those practices have on persuasion. 

Ethical egoism contends that our moral evaluations should be made in terms of our desires and goals; therefore, something that prevents a person from accomplishing their goals, is regarded as wrong, and something that promotes what a person wants is considered to be right (Mosser, 2010, p. 27).  People that do not practice ethical egoism would consider a person that practices ethical egoism to be selfish, but an ethical egoist sees selfishness in a positive light.  That being said, ethical egoists will use persuasion to help themselves to obtain what they want, or reach their goals, with no concern of how it affects others.  Their methods of persuasion may be fruitful, or detrimental, depending on their audience and the situation.

For instance, if an ethical egoist wanted a friend to go with them to a concert, but would not

pixaby.com

have the money to pay their rent, they would consider which act would give them the most satisfaction – going to the concert with their friend, or not going so their friend could pay their rent.  Going to the concert with them is most satisfying to the ethical egoist, so it would be right to try to persuade their friend to go to the concert.  This ethical outlook in persuasion would most times be readily identified by the audience and received negatively; unless the persuasion may also benefit the audience. 

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that decisions should be made based on what action would produce happiness for the most people being affected by the decision at hand; which is directly opposite of an ethical egoist.  “According to Bentham, we could measure the quantitative aspects of individual happiness (pleasure/benefits) or unhappiness (pain/damages), so that it could be possible to identify the resulting (net) level of happiness/unhappiness.  Such principle presupposes that every 

pixaby.com

pleasure can be quantified and thus measured” (Dion, 2012, p.11).  Measuring other people’s happiness is not always an easy task, but decision makers are forced to consider in general what will bring the most positive outcome to the most people that are affected by that decision.

Take for instance the previous scenario of trying to persuade a friend to go to a concert, instead of paying their rent.  Using the ethical utility theory approach, the persuader would consider that not paying the rent is not good for their friend, and is not good for the landlord; therefore, they would not persuade their friend to go to the concert because more people would be harmed than would benefit.  The utility theory can be a very powerful source in persuasion, as even though it may not benefit one group, they can show how their stance is advantageous to the most people resulting in a benefit for the greater good of humanity.  

Seiter et. al explains the psychological consistency theories as “…the common assumption that individuals have an innate desire to hold consistent beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Holding disparate beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors is thought to be psychologically uncomfortable” (Seiter et al, 2004, p. 50).  In other words, a person has to be comfortable with their decisions, and remain consistent in their behavior.  Most people begin to feel uncomfortable if their behavior is inconsistent, but many feel even more uncomfortable if other people know, or think that their decisions or behavior is inconsistent with their core beliefs. 

Taking this persuasion theory in mind, and the previous example of one friend trying to persuade another friend to attend a concert with them, instead of paying their rent; most people would hold a core belief that being responsible and paying rent is the right behavior.  Therefore, the persuader would not want to persuade their friend to act irresponsibly, because they would lose face, so they would chose not to try to get their friend to go to the concert. 

One of the major contributors to effective persuasion is source credibility.  “The two principal elements of source credibility are traditionally considered to be expertise (the level of the source's knowledge of the topic of the message, typically established by education, training, or experience in the field) and trustworthiness (whether the source can be expected to provide an objective or unbiased perspective on the topic)” (Seiter et al, 2004, pp. 95-96).  If a person is an ethical egoist, they would lose credibility as they are unable to give an unbiased perspective on the topic.  They would be biased to the perspective that would be to their personal benefit.  A utilitarian would remain trustworthy because they take an objective view and make decisions based on the “greater good” of all that would be affected by the decision.

Both ethical theories, and the psychological consistency persuasion theories, would greatly affect the way that the persuader would approach their audience.  The approach may not be considered ethical in terms of persuasion if the audience is not aware that they are being persuaded and if they do not feel free to say no.  As shown in the above example, one’s belief in ethical theories has a great deal to do with how and when they will choose to try to persuade another person.  What doesn’t change is the audience’s motivation and ability to understand the subject at hand.

References

Dion, M. (2012). Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(1), 4-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731211193098

Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Seiter, John E., and Gass, Robert H. (2004), Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining. Pearson Learning Solutions. Retrieved from <vbk:0558414850#outline(4)>.