Page 128 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

Chapter 4 Ethical Speaking and Listening 95

You are speaking to a potentially hostile audience about a controversial issue.
Let’s say you want to convince a group like the Moral Majority that we should
not have state-sanctioned prayer in school. Should you begin by announcing
your position? What is the likelihood that your argument would be heard? On
the other hand, suppose you begin by describing a scenario in which the state
requires everybody in school to study the Qur’an and pray to Allah. “How would
you react?” you ask them. “Well, now reverse the situation,” you continue. “What
if Muslim students are required to study the Bible and say the Lord’s Prayer?”
The idea would be to work from a common ground—that Christians should not
be forced to pray to a Muslim God—to the logical application of that principle to
the issue of state-sanctioned school prayer.
Certainly this approach is no guarantee of persuading the audience of your
viewpoint. But it is hard to argue that it is ethically wrong to begin with points
of agreement before moving to areas of disagreement. The intentions of your
speech are revealed to the audience. When and how those intentions are re-
vealed is a strategic rather than an ethical issue.
On the other hand, consider the case of the person who telephones and asks
you if you would be willing to participate in a survey about energy conservation.
Sure, you reply, always happy to help out. After going through a series of ques-
tions, you realize that the “pollster” is actually a salesperson for a replacement
window company. Your time has been wasted, and now you have to fi gure out
how to get off the phone. The clear misrepresentation of intent—pollster as op-
posed to salesperson—is ethically wrong. And you have been harmed, if for no
other reason than the salesperson stole your time. And, as many sellers know,
once they get your ear, the likelihood of closing the sale increases.
What makes these two cases different? Both people begin by concealing their
intentions, and both eventually do reveal their goals. But in the fi rst case, the
speaker does not misrepresent his or her intentions; rather, they are deferred
until after some common ground is established. In the second case, a direct mis-
representation is made—there is no poll. While the two cases seem on the sur-
face to be similar, we would argue that the situations are far different and that the
difference is ethically relevant.
These types of cases are not always easy or clear-cut. A universal rule—al-
ways state your purpose up front—cannot be applied. Speakers must sincerely
ask themselves in what ways their interests and those of their audience intersect.
They must then decide the best approach to take in any given case, at the same
time striving to maintain goodwill and trustworthiness.

Discussing Both Sides of a Controversial Issue

One question with both ethical and practical implications is whether you should
provide an audience with only your side of an issue or mention arguments on
the other side of the issue as well. For a number of years, speech experts an-
swered this question pragmatically: It depends on the makeup of your audience.
If the general level of education in your audience is high school or less, stick to
your side only. If the level of education in your audience is beyond high school,
introduce the other side as well. Of course this raises some real ethical concerns.
It smacks of using the audience as a means rather than treating them as ends.