Page 122 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

Chapter 4 Ethical Speaking and Listening 89

We think we can be both respectful and mindful of people’s culture without
accepting their cultural practices as entirely ethical. Likewise, we think one can
also try and influence such cultural practices without coercing people to aban-
don theirs in favor of the ones we practice.
We also believe that there are principles and consequent practices that tran-
scend cultures. Many of these principles are embodied in documents such as the
U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among others, the U.N. Gen-
eral Assembly proclaimed “freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear
21
and want” as fundamental rights. With freedom of speech enshrined in both
the First Amendment to our constitution and the U.N. declaration, public speak-
ers need to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that accompany that right.
For us, then, ethical speakers choose topics and construct their speeches with
language that respects the audience diversity typical of today’s classroom. Ethi-
cal speakers also strive to be mindful of cultural sensitivities that potentially
could undermine their speech’s effectiveness. This means they adapt to, rather
than adopt, every feature of cultural diversity found in their audience.

Treat People as Ends, Not Means

To these principles we wish to add one taken from Kant: namely, that people
should never be treated as mere means to an end. Their best interests should be
the ends sought by the speaker. Using people as objects, manipulating them even
to achieve desirable ends, is never justified. Consider the case of an interview

conducted by CNN’s Nancy Grace with Melinda Duckett, whose 2-year-old son,
Trenton, had disappeared. Grace’s questioning inferred that the mother had
something to do with the disappearance. “‘Why are you not telling us where you
were?’ Grace demanded, pounding the table. ‘Miss Duckett, you are not telling
22
us for a reason. What is the reason?’” Prior to airing the show, Melinda Duck-
ett’s body was found at her grandparents’ home. She was the victim of an appar-
ent suicide. Despite the tragedy, CNN chose to air the program anyway, which
University of Southern California Professor and former Emmy-winning ABC
23
correspondent Judy Muller called “despicable.” Of course the program prob-
ably garnered high ratings, but it is difficult to imagine a less ethical way to treat
the double tragedy of a missing child and dead mother than airing this program.
In fact, some, including Melinda Duckett’s parents, allege Grace’s questioning
24
drove the woman to suicide in the fi rst place. Whatever Ms. Duckett’s culpabil-
ity in the case of the missing child, it is difficult to imagine what purpose, other
than ratings, was served by airing the interview after her death.

Provide Good Reasons
good reasons
Another principle of ethical speaking has been articulated by Karl Wallace,
Statements, based on
scholar and former president of the Speech Communication Association (now
moral principles, offered
known as the National Communication Association). Wallace believes that the
in support of proposi-
public speaker must offer his or her audience “good reasons” for believing, valu- tions concerning what we
25
ing, and acting. Good reasons are statements, based on moral principles, should believe or how
offered in support of propositions concerning what people should believe or how we should act.
people should act. Wallace believes that ethical and moral values, as well as