Page 118 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

Speaking of . . .

Codes of Conduct for Public Speaking

Although it is not a full-fl edged ethical code, such as those of generally accepted beliefs and mores; that much good
found in law and medicine, the National Communication As- and little harm can ensue if we err on the side of freedom,
sociation’s Credo for Free and Responsible Communication whereas much harm and little good may follow if we err on
in a Democratic Society forms an important touchstone for the side of suppression.
the ethical public speaker. Other guidelines that may be of We criticize as misguided those who believe that the jus-
help to the public speaker are found in the American Adver- tice of their cause confers license to interfere physically and
tising Association’s Code of Ethics, the Code of Ethics of the coercively with the speech of others, and we condemn in-
International Association of Business Communicators, and timidation, whether by powerful majorities or strident minori-
the Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Profes- ties, which attempts to restrict free expression.
sional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations. 1 We accept the responsibility of cultivating by precept and
example, in our classrooms and in our communities, enlight-
Credo for Free and Responsible Communication ened uses of communication; of developing in our students
in a Democratic Society 2 a respect for precision and accuracy in communication, and
for reasoning based upon evidence and a judicious discrim-
Recognizing the essential place of free and responsible
ination among values.
communication in a democratic society, and recognizing the
We encourage our students to accept the role of well-
distinction between the freedoms our legal system should re-
informed and articulate citizens, to defend the communica-
spect and the responsibilities our education system should
tion rights of those with whom they may disagree, and to
cultivate, we the members of the National Communication
expose abuses of the communication process.
Association endorse the following statement of principles:
We dedicate ourselves fully to these principles, confi dent
We believe that freedom of speech and assembly must
in the belief that reason will ultimately prevail in a free mar-
hold a central position among American constitutional prin-
ketplace of ideas.
ciples, and we express our determined support for the
right of peaceful expression by any communicative means
available. 1 Richard L. Johannesen, Ethics in Human Communication, 4th ed.
We support the proposition that a free society can ab- (Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 1996), chap. 10.
sorb with equanimity speech which exceeds the boundaries 2 Used by permission of the National Communication Association.

Such philosophical relativism ran counter to the philosophy of Socrates, who
taught that absolute truth was knowable through a question-and-answer tech-
nique known as dialectic. Socrates’ student Plato wrote two dialogues, the Gor-
gias and the Phaedrus, that promoted this Socratic view of rhetoric. To Plato,
rhetoric, as practiced by the Sophists, was a sham, with no truth to it, designed
to deceive listeners. In the Phaedrus, Plato proposes an ideal rhetoric, one based
on philosophical truths. The basic function of this rhetoric is to take the truth
discovered through dialectic and energize it for the masses.
The best-known response to Plato came from his student Aristotle, whose Rhet-
oric is probably the most infl uential book on communication to this day. To Ar-
istotle, rhetoric was not the opposite of dialectic but rather its counterpart. Aris-
totle did not view rhetoric as either moral or immoral. Rather, it was an art that
could be put to both good and bad uses. The moral purpose of the speaker was
the determining factor. Aristotle believed that “things that are true and things
14
that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites.” Therefore,
he stressed the importance of training in rhetoric. Even arguing both sides of a
question was not immoral; rather, it was a way of learning how to refute someone
who misstates the facts on the other side of an issue. For Aris totle, in sum, rheto-
ric was an art, not a sham. 85