Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ISSN: 0363-8111
Larry R. Judd
An Approach to
Ethics in the
Information Age
ABSTRACT:
Public relations practitioners
often counsel
organizations on issues related to ethics and social responsibility.
And, organizations desire credibility to influence public policy.
Technology has contributed to changing values which make it
difficult to determine which behaviors will be viewed as credible.
Given our changing values and the possible conflicts between
professional ethics and organizational values, practitioners need
precepts which fit the times. As an approach to ethics for the
information
age, three precepts are proposed:
(1) accept
responsibility when appropriate, (2) anticipate negative effects,
and (3) attempt justice through John Rawls principles of justice.
Larry R. Judd is a professor in the School of Communication,
University of House.
professionals
Besides directing
communications,
many public relations
serve as advisors on issues relating to ethics and social responsibil-
ity. Determining
acceptable courses of action for organizations has become
complicated as traditional value systems often appear out of harmony with
modern society. 2 Personal and professional values may serve as guides to understanding public responsibility. But those who counsel organizations seem to hit a
point where concern for organization and other concerns conflict. Does the
client (or organization) have priority over the public or over personal values or
over professional ethics?3
Today, organizations wish to influence social and economic policy by particiSpring
1995
35
CHANGING
VALUES
36
Our belief about what is right and what is real seems a residue of the past mixed
with changes of the present. Individuals who may look to God and tradition live
in a world of science and free enterprise. Reality may be the bottom line or
defined by science and separated from traditional values and the individual.
Actions and interactions vital to the individual may be among international
corporations, instantaneous and distant. There is no guide that accommodates
contemporary
pressures. Alone, technology and efficiency will not lead to the
behaviors that will gain credibility in the contemporary public forum.
CONTEMPORARY
CONDITIONS
Many issues impact the image and expectations of organizations in the information
era. Business credibility is very low, but public
expectations of organizations are high. Some see organizations as a threat. And,
there are differing interpretations of the locus of responsibility.
Low Credibility
Business and technology contributed to an improved standard of living during the last forty years. But, there was a dramatic drop of the
publics confidence in their major institutions and in their leaders starting in the
late 1960~.~ These low evaluations of moral consciousness and social responsibility have continued through the 1980s and into the 1990~.~ Despite these low
ratings, people believed more could be done with less and more was expected of
corporations.
High Expectations
During the 1970s and 1980s we gained in productive
ability. People wanted Corporations to become more active in the resolution of
social problems. People hoped that corporations would do more than provide
profits, goods or services and employment. Individuals developed higher expectations of personal entitlements. There was an attempt to protect and help those
on the bottom of the economic ladder. Many felt that each citizen was entitled to
adequate housing, an improving standard of living, adequate retirement income
and quality medical and dental care .7 Business was expected to participate in
securing entitlements and in solving social problems.* Yet, some viewed corporations and their reliance on technology as part of the problem.
Threat
Technological development generated power over nature
and over people. Effective innovation enhanced the power of business organizations on an international scale.9 How should the power of technology be applied?
What values should influence change? Some feared that innovation guided by
market forces would be detrimental to society and the environment.O
Spring
1995
37
Responsibility
Who is responsible
for the latent effects of innovation?
With anticipated
results, the affects of new technologies
often include unanticipated negative
results. Rogers contends
that there is a need to see beyond the
direct and desirable
effects and to realize that unanticipated
results often fol10w.l~ These results may include negative changes in the nature of work or in the
social status of employees.
They may threaten all society.
Jonas argues that modern technology
creates the need for a review of ethical
responsibility.
He points out that the increased scope of our deeds raises issues that
go beyond ethics of the past-those
concerned
the dealings of person with person
in restricted space and time parameters.
He suggests that technology,
influenced
by the market and politics, has achieved the state where it may overtax nature. The
magnitude
of self-propelled
cumulative
effects may move us beyond the point of
no return.
Technology
has such power that unanticipated
side effects on the
ecology of the planet may threaten human existence. He urges that there is a need
to save the survival and humanity of man from the excesses of his power.17
Postman voices concern for loss of control to what he calls Technopoly.
He
focuses on the importance
of information
and how the relationship
of information
and human goals has been stretched.
Concerned
that we suffer from information
glut and information
without meaning, he states that We are a culture consuming
itself with information,
and many of us do not even wonder how to control the
He points out that As the power of traditional
social institutions
to
process.ls
organize perceptions
and judgment
declines, bureaucracies,
expertise, and technical machinery
become the principal means by which Technopoly
hopes to control
information
and thereby provide itself with intelligibility
and order.19 A simple
example of how the technology
determines
our view of reality is the example of
color vision. Scientists were baffled in trying to explain why peoples color vision
varied by the seasons. Recently, this barrier to explaining
human physiology
was
overcome when it was discovered that the instrument
used since 1948 to indicate
color vision was affected by room temperature.20
38
A,ye
PRECEPTS
An approach to ethics in the information age should be
sensitive to the concerns about technological determinism, suited to function in
a democratic free enterprise society, and provide a value framewrork to reconcile
conflicting claims. I argue that to achieve credibility, contemporary
organizations should accept responsibility, anticipate negative effects, and attempt justice.
Spring
1995
39
Accept Responsibility
40
Age
Attempt Justice
A major problem in attempting to reconcile conflicting
claims is that we lack a general method of determining what is perceived as just in
a society that has selectively rejected values from earlier eras. Is there a guide to
just choices in the information age?
According to Bawls, justice is fairness. He proposes a social contract that
provides a moral basis for a democratic society in a free enterprise system.27 To
distribute the benefits and burdens of social cooperation, he proposes what he
calls the principles of social justice. He suggests a hypothetical situation in which
the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. Behind the veil no
one knows their status, position, family, abilities etc.
Thus, a set of principles may be decided that will favor no particular position or
condition. He argues that people in this initial situation would choose principles
such that the first would provide equality in assigning basic rights and duties. The
second principle would hold that inequalities in position or wealth are just only if
they provide compensating benefits for everyone, especially the least advantaged.
In addition, each generation is expected to pass on to the next a fair equivalent in
real capital including knowledge and culture. Called the just savings principle,
each generation is to carry their share of the burden to preserve society.
In the real world, there is a degree of scarcity and people do have advantages of
birth and ability. Bawls tilts in the direction of providing a social minimum for all.
And, transfers of essential public goods would be arranged to provide equality of
opportunity.
Given the assumptions above, the first principle of justice for institutions is that
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of equal basic liberties for a11.28
The second principle is that Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged
so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.29
The
principles are ranked and liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty and
may not be sacrificed for the social or economic gain of others.
Bawls principles till out the three precepts I have suggested: (1) accept
responsibility when appropriate, (2) anticipate negative effects with a tilt toward
the ethics of non-power, and (3) attempt justice through fairness. Together, they
provide an approach to resolving conflicting claims in contemporary society.
APPLICATION
One example of application of this approach is to show
how it would work if applied in the third phase of Bivins systems model for
ethical decision making. 3o He suggests that his adaptation of systems theory
provides a useful tool for aiding a public relations practitioner in an ordering of
Spring
1995
41
Public RelationsReview
stakeholder claims and balancing obligations. Bivins talks about an open systems
model that identifies stakeholders, analyses their relationship to the organization
and applies ethical principles.
The process begins when an issue or problem is detected and ethical considerations are perceived to impact resolution. He suggests an ethical analysis that
compares the claims and obligations of stakeholders. Input is the issue, stakeholder analysis and prioritization.
Throughput
involves the stages of situation
definition, ethical analysis, decision, and evaluation. In our example the practitioner would define the situation and order the claims of the stakeholders. Then the
ethical analysis stage would involve the proposed three precepts of accepting
responsibility if appropriate, anticipating negative effects, and attempting justice.
And, last would come Bivins stages of decision and evaluation of the decision.
CONCLUSIONS
This article proposes the three precepts not as the solution
of the ethics problem, but as a beginning, as an outline to be refined by further
exploration and discussion. The precepts have yet to be tested in the field. But,
there is a rationale
to expect that practitioners
who advocate and organizations
who practice these three precepts will be viewed as credible and allowed a fair
hearing in the debate of public policy.
In summary,
the precepts appear compatible
with contemporary
society and
may transcend
problems
of role and perspective.
Political rights are protected
first, then there is a basis for resolving
economic
issues. Organizations
have
guides to discern when to accept responsibility for acts where they may be held
responsible by the public. Attention is focused on unanticipated effects. The
disadvantaged are protected. And, in a system compatible with free enterprise,
justice is approached through fairness.
NOTES
1. Otto Lerbinger, How far Toward the Social Audit?, Public Relations Revielv 1
(1975), pp. 38-52.
2. eg., Milton F. Capps Gaining Trust Amid Chaos, Public Relations Journal 48
(1992),
p. 19; John L. Gregory, Balance Change and Public Interest,
Public
Relations Journal 48 (1992), p. 25.
3. eg., Daniel J. Edelman, Ethical Behavior is Key to Fields Future, Public Relations
Journal 48 (1992)~~. 3 l-32; Susan L. Fry, Ethical Values Reflect Responsibility to
Client, Organization
and Self, Public Relations Journal 48 (1992), p. 10; Todd
Hunt and Andrew Tripok, Universal Ethics Code: An Idea Whose Time Has
Come, Public Relations Revierv 19 (1993), pp. l-l 1; Doug A. Newsom, Shirley A.
Ramsey, and Bob J. Carrell, Chameleon Chasing II: A Replication, Public Relations
Revielv 19 (1993), pp. 33-47; Cornelius B. Pratt, PRSA Members Perceptions of
Public Relations Ethics, Public Relations Revielv 17 (1991), pp. 145-159; Donald
42
7.
K. Wright, Enforcement
Dilemma: Voluntary Nature of Public Relations Codes,
Public Relations Review 19 (1993), pp. 13-20.
eg., Dirk, C. Gibson, The Communication
Continuum:
A Theory of Public
Relations,
Public Relations Review 17 (1991), pp. 175-183;
Larry R. Judd,
Credibility, Public Relations and Social Responsibility,
Public Relations Review 5
(1989), pp. 3440.
Seymour Martin Lipset, and William Schneider, Hows Business? What the Public
Thinks, Public Opinion 1 (1978), pp. 4147.
eg., Seymour Martin Lipset, Feeling Better: Measuring the Nations Confidence,
Public Opinion 8 (1985), pp. 56-58; Judy A. Gordon and Adam Shell, Forecast
1992, Journal of Public Relations 48 (1992), p. 18.
Peg Dardene, Dont Rain on My Parade, Journal of Public Relations 36 (1980), p.
8.
45.
eg., Otto Lerbinger,
4.
5.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18
19.
20.
21.
22.
Spring 1995
43
44