Ethics in Communications

Ethics in Communications

Author

Institution

Introduction

Communication has, for a long time, been one of the most crucial elements or aspects in life. In fact, it has been touted as the most powerful and crucial motivator in any person’s life. It goes without saying that communication has the capacity to change or modify the direction that an individual’s life takes. For instance, parents and teachers have the capacity to motivate and even have a significant influence on a child with a single comment, even in instances where the comment is a light “throwaway” comment. In some instances, a person’s viewpoint may inspire another individual to take on a life-long and fulfilling journey, or even give them the conviction that the as to the achievable nature of their dreams. Needless to say, creative and effective communication allows for increased honesty levels, as well as strong and long-lasting relationships. It is worth noting that communication skills can be developed and improved as it revolved around the capacity of an individual that connects him spiritually with other people. As much as there are numerous goals of communication, the most fundamental ones include enhancing trust, wisdom, and understanding tolerance. In addition, it plays a key role in building relationships societies, families and friendships (Makau, 1997). Obviously, these things underline the importance of communication in the society. This, however, begs the question as to the key to effective communication. It is worth noting that effective communication revolves around agreement rather than control. It goes without saying that any individual would have the capacity to eliminate resistance in an effective manner through communication rather than force, simply because communication allows individuals to establish agreement between them and other people. Agreement is mainly gained in instances where everyone is allowed to win, or at least allowed to think that they have won. This underlines the notion and importance of ethics in communication.

Ethics is mainly defined as the rules of conduct that are recognized as pertaining to a certain group, culture of human actions. These are the standards set for a certain group or class of people as to what is expected of their standards for purpose and quality of their communication. In essence, ethics in communication mainly place boundaries as to how and individual treats or does not treat other people (Makau, 1997). These ethics are never imposed on individuals rather people establish them for themselves. The incorporation of ethics of communication is recognition of the power of communication and the respect of the same.

However, it is worth noting that communication as a discipline, human act or process of knowledge may not be much relevant when combined with the aspect of ethics (Makau, 1997). In essence, the ethics in communication discourse leads directly to details pertaining to the ethical standards that are maintained and upheld by communicators. Scholars note that the ethical standards pertaining to communication are also founded on the varied cultures, religions and principles that define what an individual holds as right or wrong (Makau, 1997). This underlines the fact that the ethics of communication that an individual may hold as essential may vary with what other people may even value. Evidently, ethics are clearly tied to morality. The notion of morality changes with different people and different cultures.

As much as this may be the case, there are certain principles that crosscut every religion, culture or personal discipline as far as communication. These are aspects that have to be incorporated in any form of communication so as to safeguard effectiveness and ensure that the people concerned reach an agreement (Makau, 1997). These ethics underline the difference between what is considered good and evil, virtuous and non-virtuous features of individuals, and wrong and right human activities. These are the principles or ideas that guide effective communication and distinguish between right and wrong. These would not only be applicable in small groups but also large groups of people so as to gain consensus or agreement. As scholars note, ethical communication promotes human dignity and worth by allowing for truthfulness, personal integrity, fairness, responsibility, as well as fairness for oneself and other people (Makau, 1997). Ethical communication, therefore, must consider responsibility and caring for oneself, as well as other people.

One of the most fundamental ethics in communication is listening to other people as they speak (Arneson, 2007). Scholars have noted that, the greatest part of speaking is not in uttering words rather it is in listening to other people and giving other people an opportunity to speak. In fact, there can be no communication in instances where only one individual is speaking without or asking questions without giving other people a moment to reply or contribute to the conversation (Arneson, 2007). As scholars note, denying other people an opportunity to speak leaves them feeling unworthy and lowers their self-esteem, in which case they are disengaged from the conversation. This means that no agreement would be reached without listening; otherwise the conversation would be aimed at controlling rather than agreeing.

In addition, it is imperative that an individual avoids interrupting other people during conversations, or even engaging in side conversations (Arneson, 2007). It goes without saying that such a behavior comes out as rude especially to the speaker, in which case it may be difficult for him or her to express his true feeling about an issue. This underlines the fact that the interruptions and side conversations would hinder effective communication and agreement (Arneson, 2007).

In addition, it is imperative that one respects other people’s personal boundaries irrespective of the type of conversation (Makau, 1997). Everyone has issues that he or she would not wish to discuss in public or even divulge to certain people or in certain situations. In fact, some of these issues would only be discussed once the individuals are prepared to talk about them and are sure about the people to whom they are talking. In essence, such individuals would likely feel cornered or ambushed in cases where their personal boundaries are not respected. In fact, the feeling of being offended would be likely to breed defensive conversations or even brew arguments and bad blood amongst individuals (Glenister & Arnett, 2008). Needless to say, such disrespect of personal boundaries would stand in the way of effective communication. In most cases, such individuals would think that the speaker is attacking their character or ideas. It is, therefore, imperative that individuals determine what the audience or other people would be comfortable handling in the private and public conversations. This breeds feelings of respect and mutual understanding, which allows people to open up their true feelings and, thereby, aid effective communication (Glenister & Arnett, 2008). It is worth noting that, respect for boundaries does not only entail other people’s boundaries but also one’s own. Individuals must ensure that they only talk about or incorporate things that they are comfortable sharing in their conversations as this would foster openness and effective communication.

In addition, it is imperative that one desists from speaking judgmentally either about other people or their views (Glenister & Arnett, 2008). This principle also underlines the importance or desisting from speaking for other people by, for instance, characterizing their views without reexamining one’s understanding or even universalizing one’s conclusions, beliefs, values and opinions. In most cases, there exists a possibility that one is misinterpreting other people’s views (Arneson, 2007). In any case, no person would be comfortable having his or her privacy infringed upon, in which case such generalization would be likely to impede opening up and effective communication. In essence, it is always imperative that the analysis of other people’s views is done objectively and clarification sought in instances where some things are unclear (Glenister & Arnett, 2008). This would not only allow for participation and ownership of conversation among all parties concerned, but the participants would also have trust for each other, something that would breed effective communication.

As much as ethics may be a fundamental aspect of effective communication, there are various ethical dilemmas that may be faced during communication. In most cases, an individual has to chose between doing what may be considered ethical or picking another option (Arneson, 2007).

One of the most common ethical dilemmas surrounding communication is secrecy. Secrets may be kept for either dishonorable or honorable reasons and may be used to invade intimacy or guard it. This presents a challenge to individuals in determining the justifiable nature of secrets (Arneson, 2007). It goes without saying that, in instances where too much secrecy is incorporated, it ends up hindering their innovation and creativity. Organizations, on the other hand, need to limit access to certain information especially from their competitors. This, therefore, presents a dilemma as to whether they should disclose certain pieces of information.

In addition, whistle blowing comes as one of the ethical dilemmas. In most cases, employees will go public with information pertaining to the negligence and corporate abuses, something that is required of them (Arneson, 2007). However, corporations legitimately expect that their employees will be loyal to them. In addition, the motivation of some whistle-blowers is simply misplaced especially in instances where it is motivated by revenge, jealousy and greed. In addition, there are instances when employees cannot tell the difference between private and public interest. Of course, it is imperative that the public is informed about potentially hazardous practices of corporations. On the other hand, it is difficult to define the true motivations of whistle-blowers (Keeble, 2005). This is the same case for leaks, which are essentially anonymous whistle-blowing, with the distinguishing factor being that the individual leaking the info would not be available for cross-examination. In essence, it would be difficult to ascertain the claim’s credibility. In any case, the accused would have no idea why the information has been released. In any case, the “whistle-blower” may do it for dishonorable or honorable reasons. In addition, it may be just part of a smear campaign, a way of political maneuvering all in an effort to sabotage another person’s career (Glenister & Arnett, 2008). On the other hand, the allegations made may be legitimate, made with the sole aim of aiding the public. However, choosing or determining which is applicable becomes a problem.

Another thing that presents an ethical dilemma to an individual or organization is euphemism. This is defined as the use of expressions that are deemed to be less offensive than the real ones that may cause distress in the audience and the participants concerned. For instance, it is considered more preferable to use the term “permanently borrowing” than to say “stealing”, which comes with a negative connotation (Arneson, 2007). This is the same case for having the term “consideration fee” to define the acceptance of a “bribe”, which, in fact, comes with a negative connotation and creates an unpleasant image pertaining to the individual. However, it goes without saying that the use of these words or terms comes as an impediment or hindrance of the true picture, which is ethically unacceptable (Keeble, 2005). On the other hand, an individual would also be considered to have feelings for other people and use words that would not be deemed too harsh or harmful to an individual. This is obviously a dilemma as an individual would not know which route would be most appropriate for him to take.

Nevertheless, there are various ways in which dilemmas pertaining to ethics in communication may be resolved. First, it would be imperative that one determines the legality of a certain action. It goes without saying that, in instances where a certain issue is encompassed in law or declared illegal by law, one has no option but to follow the legal boundaries pertaining to the same, irrespective of how harmful it may seem to another party. Alternatively, an individual may look into his or her conscious in determining how to deal with a dilemma pertaining to ethics in communication (Keeble, 2005). It is worth noting that if an individual determines that he has a clear conscious and intent, then the statement would be appropriate irrespective of its accuracy. In fact, scholars have underlined the fact that even in instances where a statement is accurate or factual, it would be inappropriate if the intent is unbecoming or immoral. On the same note, it would be helpful for an individual to determine the accuracy of information before going ahead and talking about it. However, the intent of disclosing or communicating about certain information would require that an individual is solely driven by the need to protect the public or organization and enhancing the quality of services offered, as well as the trust in the relationships between people (Keeble, 2005).

In conclusion, communication has been one of the most crucial and fundamental elements of the society. It aids in building trust, relationships, as well as increased honesty levels. However, it is worth noting that the sole aim of communication is agreement. Agreement is mainly gained in instances where everyone is allowed to win, or at least allowed to think that they have won. In essence, it is imperative that communication is of certain ethical standards. Ethics in communication mainly involve listening to other parties, desisting from disrupting them or holding side-conversations, respecting personal boundaries both for self and other people’s, desisting from being judgmental of other people’s views and opinions and seeking clarity when they do not understand (Glenister & Arnett, 2008). However, there are varied ethical dilemmas that impede ethics in communication. These include euphemism, whistle-blowing and secrecy. For example, an individual would be held captive by the requirements of an organization pertaining to the loyalty of its workers, yet be obligated to disclose any unbecoming practices that would be harmful to the public (Glenister & Arnett, 2008). In addition, an individual would consider the feelings of other people as far as uttering certain statements is concerned and, therefore, use a euphemism, whereas he would be required to be accurate in giving facts pertaining to the behavior of another person.

References

Glenister, R. K., & Arnett, R. C. (2008). Communication ethics: between cosmopolitanism and provinciality. New York: P. Lang.

Makau, J. M. (1997). Communication ethics in an age of diversity. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Arneson, P. (2007). Exploring communication ethics: Interviews with influential scholars in the field. New York: Peter Lang.

Keeble, R. (2005). Communication ethics today. Leicester, UK: Troubador Pub. Ltd.