Philosopher S. Jack O'Dell argued that "a society without ethics is a society doomed to extinction,
we need ethics to function in life how else could you trust others or
make sense to the world if society didn't have at least some sort of system of ethics".
What are ethics we can turn to Dictionary.com which offers four definitions of the plural noun ethics.
Note the emphasis on moral values specifically related to right in wrong, an good and bad
now is argumentation involves persuasion we must necessarily be concerned about ethics in argumentation
today will focus on Why we need to be concerned about ethics in persuasion?
and by extension argumentation, Ethics for arguers and receivers? and a Coad of contact for practicing
argumentation discourse? Turning first to why we need to be concerned about
ethics in persuasion Richard Johannes of Northern Illinois University
reminds us that ethical issues focus on value judgments concerning
degrees of right and wrong goodness and badness in human conduct,
as such persuasion always contains ethical issues.
For several reasons it involves one person or a group of people,
who are attempting to influence other people, by altering their beliefs, attitudes, values,
and actions, it also involves conscious choices amongst ends sought
and rhetorical means use to achieve the ends, and then it necessarily involves a potential
judge in this case a potential judge could be :any or all other receivers, the persuader,
or an independent observer.
Realize that argumentation is dialogue according to J Vernon Jensen in 1997
"Dialogue is a spirit, an attitude, and mindset
that is reflected by the techniques in behaviors the verbal and nonverbal cues,
of those who are interacting" in this case arguers and recipients.
So dialogue in this case means to it involved in this case both the sender's the
arguers and the receivers or the recipient's notice that both sender and receiver are
plural words it can involve multiple senders and multiple receivers so just a couple of questions to think
about Is it an ethical violation if the violation is made by accident, or a slip of the tongue, or ignorance?
and also Do arguers have an ethical obligation to double check the validity and
accuracy and reasoning and their arguments and evidence before presenting it to others?
Continuing the view that argumentation involves both senders or arguers and receivers or
recipients it makes sense that there are ethical guidelines for both arguers
an recipients for arguers you need to be accountable and responsible provide the audience
with the ability to make voluntary decisions you not coercing or forcing
and you're promoting positive relationships with the audience.
For recipients you need to be aware attempts to influence you, you need to be
critical thinkers, critical receivers, you should also be informed
and be aware of your own biases finally you'll need to understand how fallacies
persuade. Now here's a big long code of conduct for practicing argumentation
discourse and I know that you can stop this video and read all of them and of course
I know that you are going to do that, but in other words the underlying value about these is that
you need to be honest. Now there are obviously other considerations
as it relates to debate where academically are in the courtroom
specifically do not advocate something which you do not believe yourself.
If you're given the assignment argue the case for capital punishment
in a classroom today you will likely have strong views
on the topic and you may not even be arguing the side that you support,
however in the interest to the receivers been able to make
appropriate decisions both viewpoints the Pro
and the Con need to be represented.
In this case as in a court of law for example you could argue that
ethics require you to construct the best arguments possible
so that an informed decision can be made.
Processing time Why is it important for society to have a system ethics?
What is the underlying principle behind the code of conduct for practicing argumentation discourse?
and Are there ever any exceptions to ethics?
As you move forward in your study of argumentation please keep in mind that
while you may want to win an argument or win a debate you must also be an ethical advocate.