Are values and language use inextricably bound? According to James Porter in “Framing Postmodern Commitment and Solidarity,” this is the case (Peeples 202). If one believes values to be intrinsic to man, then perhaps Porter’s argument is right.
While Porter argues in respect of the law, he admits that the law should not be the ultimate authority in determining the beginning or ending of rhetorical ethics. It is often unclear and complex with regard to handling intellectual property and can be more confusing than helpful. Neither is the individual the moral authority, being less than solid or trustworthy (203). While the ethical cannot ignore the legal, nor the legal the ethical (204), there are times in one’s professional career where the legal may become overlooked. So what does one do when this is the case? It is at times such as this when one must look to define their rhetorical ethics.
There was a time when “the spirit of caring” (203) and love for one’s neighbor was enough of a moral compass to guide the rules of communal engagement. Certain unspoken rules applied to everyday life; and careers such as journalism were kept to these rules. However, today one often wonders if anyone has ever heard of what use to be referred to as the “Golden Rule”—do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Today, careers that promote professional writing and rhetoric can be categorized right alongside the notorious used car salesman. In fact, many of the same cautions may very well apply to both—let the buyer beware.
After reading Porter’s article (or perhaps watching a primetime news program), one cannot help but ask “Do most people have a strong sense of values, priorities, or principles? Or, are most individuals often found without basis for settling those hard, ethical decisions that life will bring?”
From heads of state to small business owners, people just have a hard time with rhetorical ethics.
While Porter is not suggesting that all people have a moral geometry—a scientific, rigorous, rules-based approach to settling ethical decisions (203)—he is advising them to have a procedural heuristic that would guide their hard problem-solving.
As a professional communicator, the need for one’s own personal ethical treatise will arise often. I believe that one will have need of an actual written statement that they can re-visit often; a formal statement of “What I believe” and “What I value most in life.” Without such documents, it becomes easy to waiver on the sea of rhetorical uncertainty; especially when many employers are less than ethical in their approach to written communication and fail to insist on a firm ethical stance in the workplace.
Many people within professional writing may not think of themselves as needing a procedural heuristic. This may be the very problem that leads to not knowing how to approach those sticky rhetorical problems once they arise.
Porter made the statement that “at the point when you begin to write, you begin to define yourself” (203). I believe this also to be true. When you read a document or listen to a piece done by a professional communicator that has language that is overly biased, or too pointed in its tone, you begin to wonder “What is the foundation of this communication? Or, can I really trust this author?” While persuasive appeals are welcomed, there can be a fine line between persuasive and unethical. A simple remedy to this is to incorporate the few guidelines that Porter gives for balancing the writer-reader relationship:
Respect the audience and/or their differences
Care for the concrete other versus
the generalized other
Do not oppress or harm
In other words, “do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.” And yes, old rules still do apply.
- Login to post comments