Chapter 2-Ethics Matters: Understanding The Ethics of Public Speaking
Chapter 2-Ethics Matters: Understanding The Ethics of Public Speaking
1. Explain how the three levels of the ethics pyramid might be used in evaluating the ethical
choices of a public speaker or listener.
A. Speakers will prepare their remarks with the intention of telling the truth, explains Dr.
Tilley.
1. Similarly, an ethical listener keeps an open mind, listening to the speaker before
making judgments.
2. One way to assess intent is to seek feedback from others; how ethical do they
think a behavior or a remark is?
4. Third, consider whether a behavior is beneficial for the majority, or whether you
would approve of the same behavior from someone else.
C. Ends are the outcomes you hope to achieve, say McCroskey, Wrench, and Richmond.
1. Some end results could be good for the source (speaker) but bad for the receiver
(listener).
3. Your goal should be chosen according to ethical standards you and your audience
expect from each other.
D. Understanding ethics is a matter of balancing all three parts of the ethical pyramid.
1. Tilley recommends testing the ethics of a given behavior by asking:
a. “Have I discussed the ethicality of the behavior with others and come to a
general consensus that the behavior is ethical?”
b. “Does the behavior adhere to known codes of ethics?”
c. “Would I be happy if the outcomes of the behavior were reversed and
applied to me?”
Intent: the degree to which an individual is cognitively aware of her or his behavior, the means
one uses, and the ends one achieves.
Means: the tools or behaviors that one employs to achieve a desired outcome.
Section Exercises
1. Can you think of a time when you intended to have a “good” end and employed “good”
means, but you ended up accomplishing a “bad” end? Why do you think our ends are not
always in line with our intentions?
Possible outcomes:
A student, in the spirit of honesty, reveals information that spoils a surprise party.
A student, in the spirit of camaraderie, says to someone, “It’s good to talk to you. I’ll see
you at the party.” The second person has not been invited to the party, and now knows
he/she is excluded.
A student, out of honest concern, conveys information about the threatened health about a
third person. The third person’s medical privacy is violated.
A student, intending to be supportive, offers advice to an acquaintance. That individual
feels insulted and feels s/he is being treated as a helpless child.
Ends are not always in line with our intensions when there is important information that’s
unknown or misunderstood.
2. Ursula is developing a speech on the importance of organ donation. She has found lots of
impressive statistics in her research but feels she needs an interesting story to really make
Possible outcomes:
Someone might cite the three questions offered by Tilley as a way to assess ethical rigor.
Someone might observe that Ursula is taking liberties with the truth.
Someone might comment that a true story ought to be more compelling than a contrived
story.
Someone might claim that they would feel manipulated or betrayed if anyone had used
such a dishonest tactic to persuade them to do something.
Some students might not see anything wrong with what Ursula did. In that case, the
instructor might ask if students believe Ursula was honest in the fullest possible way. The
instructor might also remind students of Tilley’s third question: “Would I be happy if the
outcomes of the behavior were reversed and applied to me?”
The instructor can cite the case of James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces. The book
was represented as a memoir of drug addiction and triumph over addiction. Oprah Winfrey
selected the book for Oprah’s Book Club, and many people read the book and found that it
helped them. Then it was found that many events and details were embellished or exaggerated.
Readers felt betrayed, and Oprah herself was so outraged that she invited Frey to her show a
second time in order to publicly give him a piece of her mind.
The instructor can ask the class what they believe Ursula should have done instead of the
strategy she used.
3. Pablo has been scheduled to work late several nights this week and is very tired by the
time his Public Speaking class rolls around in the late afternoon. One of his classmates
gives a speech about environmental sustainability and Pablo does not really pay attention
to what his classmate is saying. After the speech, Pablo’s teacher asks him to critique the
speech. Because he doesn’t really know what happened in the speech, Pablo makes a
general statement that the speech was pretty good, that the delivery was okay, and that
the organization was fine. Using the ethics pyramid as a guide, in what ways might
Pablo’s response be ethical? In what ways might it be unethical? What are Pablo’s
responsibilities as an ethical listener?
Possible outcomes:
Pablo probably does not follow Tilley’s first suggestion about seeking the feedback about
what he will say in his so-called critique.
Faking a critique violates many professional codes of ethics.
Pablo probably would not like it much if someone tuned his speech out and then gave
unhelpful feedback about it.
Pablo’s feedback about the organization of the speech might be ethical if he and his
classmate had read each others’ outlines, and if the organization of the speech actually
was fine. However, if Pablo tuned the speech out, his feedback on delivery is entirely
fictional.
Chapter 2 – Section 3
1. Understand how to apply the National Communication Association’s (NCA) Credo for
Ethical Communication within the context of public speaking.
2. Understand how you can apply ethics to your public speaking preparation process.
B. Through the credo, the NCA expresses its commitment to following principles of
ethical communication (paraphrased):
ii. There are eight reasons for why it’s important to cite one’s sources.
5. Distorted information comes from sources with hidden agendas, such as the
websites of hate groups.
3. We might find it difficult to listen to the content of the speech and, instead, work
on creating a rebuttal the entire time the speaker is talking. When this happens, we
do not strive to understand the speaker and do not respect the speaker.
2. We must be open with our audiences so that our intentions and perceptions are
clear. Nothing alienates an audience faster than a speaker with a hidden
agenda unrelated to the stated purpose of the speech.
K. We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences of our own
communication and expect the same of others.
1. We live in a society where a speaker’s message can be heard around the world in
a matter of minutes, sometimes with regrettable consequences.
Distortion: purposefully twisting information in a way that detracts from its original meaning.
Racist language: language that demeans an entire race of people or people within a specific
ethnic group, or an individual because he or she belongs to a specific race of ethnic group.
Sexist language: language that demeans or excludes one of the biological sexes.
Section Exercise
1. Fill out the “Public Speaking Ethics Checklist” while thinking about your first speech. Did
you select any “true” answers? If so, why? What can you do as a speaker to get to the point
where you can check them all “false”?
Possible outcomes:
Students might comment that they don’t understand how one would know which sources are
credible (item 4). If the instructor is pre-acquainted with the section of Chapter 7 that addresses
research, she or he could comment on the qualifications, reputation, timeliness, and completeness
of the source. She or he might use a few examples. The issue of credibility is related to whether
or not, in good judgment, one should trust a source. A speaker should resist the temptation, for
example, to use the very first website they find that agrees with her or his opinion.
Students might comment that they don’t know how to go about thinking of their audience’s
needs and desires (item 6). If the instructor is pre-acquainted with Chapter 5 on audience
analysis, she or he can cite some specific examples of traits shared by all members of the
audience and also some differences, such as majors, life goals, and so on.
Students might comment that asking them to consider the long-term consequences of their
speech is asking too much. They might make the objection that they have no crystal ball and
cannot possibly see into the future. The instructor can then point out the key terms (ageist
language, etc.) to show students that they indeed can make some reasonable inferences about the
responses of others.
Students might be reluctant to be truthful about their answers to the ethics checklist. If
this happens, an instructor can talk about his or her own mistakes in the past and ask students if
they have ever had similar experiences. For example, it is easy to make the mistake in item 10: “I
sometimes blend in my personal opinions when discussing actual facts during the speech.” Such
an error sometimes occurs in a sentence that begins with, “Most people . . .” It is not always easy
to distinguish between assumptions and opinions, and facts. This mistake is not always made
with malice and forethought; it might simply be a mistake, though one that must be avoided.
2. Robert is preparing a speech about legalizing marijuana use in the United States. He knows
that his roommate wrote a paper on the topic last semester and asks his roommate about the
paper in an attempt to gather information. During his speech, Robert orally cites his roommate
by name as a source of his information but does not report that the source is his roommate,
Possible outcomes:
Students might refer to the first item: “We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason
as essential to the integrity of communication.” They might also quote the sentence, “The second
part of the information-honesty is to fully disclose where we obtain the information in our
speeches.” They, or the instructor, might further comment that any attempt to mislead the
audience is unethical, no matter what the purpose of the speech is. Responses such as this will be
easier for students who have a printout of the chapter than for students who rely fully on the
electronic version.
A very thorough student might refer to distortion (listed in item 6) and say that although
it doesn’t directly disparage anyone in particular, withholding details about the source does show
disrespect for the audience by hiding the full truth.
Students might refer to the last item in the Credo: “We accept responsibility for the short- and
long-term consequences of our own communication and expect the same of others.” If not, the
instructor can mention it. Because of new communication technology and the sometimes
irresponsible use of it, people are caught in lies and misrepresentations more often than ever. If
audience members find out a speaker has played fast and loose with the truth, they might feel
betrayed. The instructor might also point out the earlier question: “Would I be happy of the
outcomes of the behavior were reversed and applied to me?”
Chapter 2 – Section 4
A. According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law, free speech entails “the right
to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based
on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the
government to avoid a clear and present danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
2. Free speech allows us, as audience members, to hear and consider multiple
points of view so that we can make more informed decisions.
1. 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Morse et al. v. Frederick case or the
“Bong Hits for Jesus” case.
Section Exercise
1. What are your campus’s internal codes on speech and free speech? Do you have free
speech areas on campus? If so, how are they used and regulated?
Possible outcome:
Most students don’t even realize that college campuses have speech codes, so this is a good
opportunity to discuss free speech on a college campus. You may even ask them to research the
free speech codes prior to class to have a more robust discussion.
2. Some college campuses have experienced controversy in recent years when they invited
speakers such as Ward Churchill or those who deny that the Holocaust occurred to campus.
Discuss in a small group how these controversies reflect the importance of free speech in our
society.
Possible outcome:
This exercise can easily and quickly turn into a debate, so it’s very important to set the
parameters for the discussion upfront to avoid hostility within the class. The goal of this activity
2-2
Chapter 2
Ethics Matters: Understanding the
Ethics of Public Speaking
2-3
Learning Objectives
• Explain how the three levels of the ethics pyramid might be used in evaluating the
ethical choices of a public speaker or listener.
• Understand how to apply the National Communication Association (NCA) Credo for Ethical
Communication within the context of public speaking.
• Understand how you can apply ethics to your public speaking preparation process.
• Define the concept of free speech and discuss its origins.
• Discuss the First Amendment to the US Constitution in terms of free speech.
• Describe how free speech relates to other freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment
to the US Constitution.
1-4 1-4
Sections 2.1 & 2.2
Ethics Today & The Ethics Pyramid
2-5
The Ethics Pyramid
• A model developed by Elspeth Tilley, proposes three basic concepts: intent, means, and
ends.
2-6
Intention
• Similarly, an ethical listener keeps an open mind, listening to the speaker before making
judgments.
• One way to assess intent is to seek feedback from others; how ethical do they think a
behavior or a remark is?
• A second way to assess intent is to check out existing codes of ethics.
• Third, consider whether a behavior is beneficial for the majority, or whether you would
approve of the same behavior from someone else.
• Sometimes people can engage in unethical behavior unintentionally; plagiarism often
occurs when a speaker uses a phrase or content, forgetting that he or she read it in
someone else’s work.
2-7
Means
2-8
Ends
• The outcomes you hope to achieve, say McCroskey, Wrench, and Richmond (2002).
• Some end results could be good for the source (speaker) but bad for the receiver
(listener).
• An example would be persuading audience members to buy something they don’t actually
want.
• Your goal should be chosen according to ethical standards you and your audience expect
from each other.
2-9
Why the Pyramid Matters
• Understanding ethics is a matter of balancing all three parts of the ethical pyramid.
• Tilley recommends testing the ethics of a given behavior by asking:
– “Have I discussed the ethicality of the behavior with others and come to a general consensus
that the behavior is ethical?”
– “Does the behavior adhere to known codes of ethics?”
– “Would I be happy if the outcomes of the behavior were reversed and applied to me?”
2-10
Section 2.3
Ethics in Public Speaking
2-11
The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication
2-12
Nine Principles of Ethical Communication
2-13
Principle 1
2-14
Principle 2
2-15
Principle 3
• Understanding of, and respect for, other communicators before passing judgment.
2-16
Principle 4
• Access to communication resources and opportunities for the purpose of promoting the
well-being of families, communities, and society.
2-17
Principle 5
2-18
Principle 6
2-19
Principle 7
• Support for the expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
2-20
Principle 8
• Advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings while respecting privacy and
confidentiality.
2-21
Principle 9
2-22
Section 2.4
Free Speech
2-23
What is Free Speech
• “The right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content
and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present
danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” (Merriam
Webster’s Dictionary of Law).
2-24
Why is Free Speech Important for Public Speakers?
2-25
The First Amendment to the Constitution
2-26
Free Speech is Solidified in the Bill of Rights
2-27
Limitations to Free Speech
• 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Morse et al. v. Frederick case or the “Bong Hits for
Jesus” case.
• Free speech is constantly being debated by politicians, judges, and the public, even
within the United States, where this right has been discussed for over two-hundred
years.
2-28