speech on moral values and ethics

Speech on Moral Values

Moral values are the principles and beliefs that shape our behavior and help us distinguish right from wrong. These values guide us in our interactions with others and define the type of person we want to be.

• 10 Lines Speech on Moral Values

In a world where we are often faced with conflicting information and values, it can be easy to lose sight of what is truly important. This is why it is so important to hold onto and prioritise our moral values.

Values like honesty, kindness, compassion, and respect are not just nice to have, they are essential to building and maintaining healthy relationships with others.

These values are the foundation of trust and understanding and allow us to connect with others on a deeper level.

Moreover, moral values help us make difficult decisions by providing a clear framework for ethical behaviour.

When we face challenging situations, our moral values can help us stay true to ourselves and our beliefs, even in the face of adversity.

Holding onto our moral values allows us to be the best version of ourselves.

When we live our lives in alignment with our values, we experience a sense of inner peace and contentment that cannot be found in material possessions or external achievements.

Moral values are the compass that guides us through life. By prioritising and living according to our values, we can build strong relationships, make ethical decisions, and live a fulfilling life.

Inculcating moral values is a lifelong process, and it requires consistency, patience, and commitment.

It is important to remember that children learn best when they feel safe, loved, and supported, so creating a nurturing environment is crucial to the process.

Short Speech on Moral Values

Long speech on moral values, importance of moral values, moral values for school students.

Moral values are principles and beliefs that guide a person's behaviour and decision-making in distinguishing right from wrong.

How can we inculcate Moral Values

Inculcating moral values is an ongoing process that starts at home and continues throughout life. Here are some ways to help inculcate moral values:

Be a role model | Children learn by observing the behavior of those around them. It is important to model the moral values you want to inculcate in them.

Teach by example | Explain moral values through real-life situations and teach children how to apply these values in their daily lives.

Reinforce positive behaviour | Praise and acknowledge children when they demonstrate moral values and correct them when they don't.

Encourage empathy | Help children develop empathy by encouraging them to put themselves in other people's shoes and consider how their actions might impact others.

Teach responsibility | Encourage children to take responsibility for their actions and hold them accountable for their behaviour.

Foster communication | Encourage open communication and help children develop the skills to express themselves and listen to others.

Provide opportunities for community service | Engaging in community service activities can help children develop a sense of social responsibility and empathy for others.

Use media and literature | Use books, movies, and TV shows to teach moral values and reinforce positive behaviour.

Moral values are the foundation of ethical behaviour and help individuals prioritise what is important in their lives. Examples of moral values include honesty, integrity, respect, kindness, compassion, responsibility, and fairness.

Moral values are the fundamental principles that shape our character and guide our behavior, both towards ourselves and others. They are learned through practice and daily application, and are crucial for personal, social, and spiritual growth.

Moral values are important because they guide our behaviour and decision-making and help us distinguish right from wrong. Here are some of the reasons why moral values are essential:

Provide a sense of direction | Moral values provide a framework for ethical behaviour and help us navigate through life's challenges with a sense of purpose and direction.

Build strong relationships | Values like honesty, respect, and kindness are essential to building and maintaining healthy relationships with others. These values help us connect with others on a deeper level and establish trust and understanding.

Foster empathy and compassion | Moral values encourage empathy and compassion for others and help us develop a sense of social responsibility. This, in turn, helps us create a more just and equitable society.

Develop character and integrity | Living according to our moral values helps us develop strong character and integrity, which are essential to achieving our goals and fulfilling our potential.

Enhance personal growth and fulfilment | Living a life based on moral values can help us find meaning and purpose in life, leading to personal growth and fulfilment.

Honesty | Students should be encouraged to be truthful and sincere in their interactions with others.

Respect | Students should be taught to show respect to their teachers, parents, peers, and all individuals, regardless of their background or beliefs.

Responsibility | Students should be taught to take responsibility for their actions and be accountable for their behaviour.

Kindness | Students should be encouraged to be kind and compassionate towards others, including animals and the environment.

Empathy | Students should be taught to understand and appreciate the feelings and experiences of others and develop empathy towards those who are less fortunate.

Fairness | Students should be taught to be fair and just in their interactions with others and not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, or other factors.

Perseverance | Students should be encouraged to persevere through challenges and not give up easily.

Self-control | Students should be taught to exercise self-control and manage their emotions and impulses.

Gratitude | Students should be encouraged to express gratitude and appreciation for the blessings in their lives.

By embracing these moral values, students can develop strong character, empathy, and social responsibility, and become responsible and ethical individuals. Moral values are closely tied to our sense of purpose in life and our attitude towards others, and can help us overcome selfishness and prioritise the well-being of humanity, society, and the world. Ultimately, values provide the underlying motivation for our actions.

In conclusion, moral values are essential to our personal and social development, guiding our behaviour and decision-making and helping us create a more just and equitable society.

Applications for Admissions are open.

VMC VIQ Scholarship Test

Register for Vidyamandir Intellect Quest. Get Scholarship and Cash Rewards.

Tallentex 2025 - ALLEN's Talent Encouragement Exam

Register for Tallentex '25 - One of The Biggest Talent Encouragement Exam

JEE Main Important Physics formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Physics formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Accepted by more than 11,000 universities in over 150 countries worldwide

Pearson | PTE

Register now for PTE & Unlock 20% OFF : Use promo code: 'C360SPL20'. Limited Period Offer! Trusted by 3,500+ universities globally

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Certifications

We Appeared in

Speeches > Rex E. Lee > Honesty and Integrity

Honesty and Integrity

President of Brigham Young University

September 5, 1995

Today is literally one of the highlights of my life. My soul is filled with joy and thanksgiving. From the time I was a little boy, the opening day of school has always been one of excitement and anticipation. It is for this reason that a high point of my years as president of BYU has been the opportunity for Janet and me to share some thoughts with you at the beginning of each fall semester.

This one, of course—for reasons Brother Hafen has explained—is also laden with an extra element of emotion. It is our seventh September devotional, and we realize that it will be our last. I have appreciated more than words can tell the expressions of support, loyalty, and love that I have received from you, and I want you to know how deeply Janet and I care for each of you and the great hopes that we have for your success and happiness not only during your time here at BYU, but also throughout this life and the next.

It is for this reason that I have pondered and prayed long over what message I want to leave with you on this very special day, my last devotional at the beginning of a new school year. There are so many hopes I have for each of you. I want you to be well educated, in the fullest sense of that word. I want you to be learned in the wisdom of the world. I want your education to help you to be happier and give you a fuller understanding of the awesome significance of what it means that in these last days the Father and the Son have actually come here to this earth and personally chosen a prophet through whom the great prophecies of Daniel and Peter have come to pass and through whom a restitution of all things is possible.

We could discuss so many things as a consequence of these grand truths. I have chosen one topic, and I hope it will be helpful to you. The principle of living that I want to discuss with you today can carry anyone of several possible labels. A very popular one, and a good one, is  ethics.  Another is  honesty.  Frankly, the one that I slightly prefer is  integrity  because for me it includes not only the values implicit in the other two, but also reminds us that what we are striving for is a wholeness and completeness of all that is good. As President Kimball has taught us: “Integrity is one of the cornerstones of character. . . . [It] is a state or quality of being complete, undivided, or unbroken” ( TSWK,  p. 192).

Whatever we call it, the quality we are talking about is easier to illustrate than it is to label or to define, and both negative as well as affirmative illustrations are available. At the negative end is the classic statement of Leona Helmsley that “only little people pay taxes” or Ivan Boesky’s equally insightful counsel to UCLA business students in 1986 that “greed is a good thing” or Leo Durocher’s well-known observation that “nice guys finish last.”

There is a  Peanuts  cartoon in which Charlie Brown first shot the arrow and then drew the bull’s-eye and the rest of the supporting target around his arrow. When Lucy complained that that was not the way it was supposed to be done, Charlie Brown responded, “If you do it my way, you never miss!”

Let me give you an example at the opposite end of the spectrum. It involves a boyhood hero of mine, Ted Williams, one of the greatest baseball players of all time. A. Thomas Young, president and chief operating officer of Martin Marietta Corporation, who observed that “ethics will continue to be the issue of the 90s,” reports Williams’ experience as follows:

More than 30 years ago, Ted Williams was closing out his career with the Boston Red Sox. He was suffering from a pinched nerve in his neck that season.

“The thing was so bad,” he later explained, “that I could hardly turn my head to look at the pitcher. “

For the first time in his career he batted under .300, hitting just .254 with 10 home runs. He was the highest salaried player in sports, making $125,000. The next year, the Red Sox sent him the same contract.

When he got the contract, Williams sent it back with a note saying that he would not sign it until they gave him the full pay  cut  allowed.

“I was always treated fairly by the Red Sox when it came to contracts,” Williams said. “Now they were offering me a contract I didn’t deserve. And I only wanted what I deserved.”

Williams cut his own salary by 25 percent, raised his batting average by 62 points and closed out a brilliant career by hitting a home run in his final at bat.  [A. Thomas Young, “Ethics in Business,”  Vital Speeches of the Day,  15 September 1992, pp. 725–26; emphasis in original]

Wallace F. Smith, a Berkeley business school professor, defines ethics as “the inherent inner voice, the source of self-control in the absence of external pressure or compulsion” (“Readers Report,”  Business Week,  4 May 1992, p. 11).

This Ted Williams story is, I submit, the classic illustration. This great hero did what he did because he was exercising “self-control in the absence of external pressure or compulsion.” My own favorite definition comes from Potter Stewart, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. He defines ethics as “knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do.”

Justice Stewart is also one of my heroes and was one of history’s finest justices and lawyers. I hope that throughout your lives you will remember and ponder his advice about the distinction between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do. You have a legal right, for example, to gossip, lie (unless you do it under oath), cut corners across BYU grass, burn flags, read pornography, be disrespectful to your parents, criticize and attack your Church leaders, apostatize from the Church, pay less than a full tithing, smoke cigarettes, be insensitive to your family members’ needs, sit by silently doing nothing while your neighbor drowns—all the while writing a poem called “Ode to a Drowning Man”—or wear a red sweater in Cougar stadium the afternoon of November 18, when the Cougars play the University of Utah. But the fact that you have a right to do these things does not make any of them the right thing to do, and ethics, as defined by Justice Stewart, consists of knowing the difference between the two.

One of the most important observations to make about ethics or integrity or whatever we call it is the danger of over-compartmentalization, that is, treating ethical issues as something separate and apart from other aspects of what we do. A law student reported, for example, that when she raised a question in one of her first-year classes whether a certain practice might be ethical, the professor responded, “You will take your ethics course next year.” When I read this law professor’s response, it reminded me of Elder Neal A. Maxwell’s insightful observation that:

Developing congruency and avoiding the compartmentalization of one’s life is, of course, necessary for the wholeness and integrity we all crave, but which is so elusive at times. So many of us have a “public self” and a “private self.” Jesus made it crystal clear that outer appearances and inner feelings must, ultimately, coincide. If the teachings of the gospel about honesty make for an honest tithe but wash against an attitudinal wall in terms of business practices, honesty is being applied differentially. We are saying that “honesty is the best policy—part of the time!”  [ “A More Excellent Way”  (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), pp. 126–127]

One of the best tests of whether we are or are not compartmentalizing our lives, I submit, is whether we would be willing to give our pet parrot to the town gossip.

I also like Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s explanation that these principles of ethics, which are so universally accepted, and properly so, are grounded in more than common sense and respect for others. In his words:

In teaching the gospel, it is far less effective to say “Be honest, for honesty is the best policy,” and then to reason from a social standpoint why this is so, than to link honesty with the gospel out of which it grows by teaching: “Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.” (2 Nephi 9:34.) It is only when gospel ethics are tied to gospel doctrines that they rest on a sure and enduring foundation and gain full operation in the lives of the saints.  [ A New Witness for the Articles of Faith  (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1985), p. 700]

I believe that one of the most important indicators of how honest we are is the seriousness with which we keep agreements that we have made. One of the most sobering problems facing our society today, in my opinion, is the failure of so many people simply to do what they have agreed to do. It is becoming quite commonplace, for example, not only for professional athletes but also for others to insist on “renegotiating” their contracts because they conclude that they are now in a position to make a better deal than the one to which they earlier committed themselves.

A bit more subtle perhaps, but certainly just as important, are our obligations to organizations and institutions to which we belong, and with whom we have made certain commitments, either expressly or by virtue of our membership or affiliation.

One of the institutions—and the people who compose it—to whom we have an integrity obligation is the nation of which we are citizens. In the case of most of us, that country is the United States of America. For me, the most consistently dismaying lack of individual integrity in this respect is the failure of rather large numbers of American citizens to pay their income taxes. Equally dismaying are the reasons given by some of these people. The two most common are that the income tax is either unconstitutional or (in the case of some LDS Church members) inconsistent with gospel principles. Each of these positions is absurd. Concerning constitutionality, the income tax is explicitly authorized by the Constitution itself. The Sixteenth Amendment states, in words that could not be more plain: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.” I have spent a good part of my life arguing and litigating over what is and is not constitutional. But I have never understood how any rational human being can take the position that a part of the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. And the notion that the anti-income tax position is rooted in gospel principles is equally insupportable in light of President Harold B. Lee’s statement describing as “vicious and wicked” the practice of those “who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities” (“Admonitions for the Priesthood of God,”  Ensign,  January 1973, pp. 105, 106).

Another opportunity to demonstrate our institutional integrity is provided by our membership in the BYU community, whose Honor Code is one of our distinguishing features. Some people are fond of pointing out, and very correctly so, that some aspects of our Honor Code are founded on principles of fundamental morality and integrity that would apply to any member of the Church and any ethical person regardless of affiliation or nonaffiliation with BYU—or for that matter with the Church. Examples are those principles dealing with observing the criminal laws of the land, academic honesty, and sexual morality. But it does not follow that we have a two-tiered Honor Code, the first tier consisting of those values that are to be taken seriously, and whose violation should be a matter for some kind of official university response, whereas those in the second tier, most notably our Dress and Grooming Standards, fall into a category of admonitions that we might call good ideas if you’re into that kind of thing, but since they’re not required for a temple recommend, don’t sweat it.

What this two-tiered approach ignores, of course, is that there is another overarching principle at work, not applicable to members of the Church in general. It has to do with keeping the deals we have made, precisely the kind of thing that we have been talking about this morning. Members of the Church at large have not signed a formal commitment in the presence of their bishop to keep all aspects of the Honor Code, with solemn assurances that the applicants are serious about the commitments they have made and will honor them.

The fact that you and I have made such a commitment should be the end of the matter. Having made such a formal promise, we are bound by it just as Karl G. Maeser was bound by the hypothetical lines of his famous circle. That’s what we mean by honor, and that’s what we mean by integrity. A different standard does apply to those of us at BYU, a standard that has been determined very consciously by our board of trustees, and which each of us has solemnly agreed to follow. I hope that no one on this campus will ever adopt a two-tiered approach to the Honor Code, observing those provisions that in the individual’s view are important and disregarding the others. They are all important precisely because we have agreed to honor them.

In conclusion, let me tell you about one of our alumni who met the full measure of honesty. He is a retired gentleman, living on a modest pension, who sat in my office a few years ago and told me that in the 1930s he had attended BYU for one quarter. Due to some administrative error, he had never been billed for the $32 that at that time, according to his recollection, was the amount BYU charged for a quarter’s tuition. He told me, “For over 50 years that unpaid tuition has weighed heavily on my mind, and I want to make it right. You tell me what I owe, and I will pay.” I told him that he owed us absolutely nothing. The statute of limitations on that claim had run a half century ago. He patiently pointed out that he was not talking about a legal obligation but a moral one.

When I could see that nothing less than satisfaction of my estimate of the present value of that original $32 obligation would calm his soul, I told him that I thought a reasonable present value for the unpaid tuition of years ago would be about $500. He thought about my answer for a minute and then said, “Could I have a little time to pay it off?” We worked out a payment schedule, and that obligation has now been completely satisfied.

I refer back to Elder McConkie’s observation that for a believing, practicing Latter-day Saint, we are honest and ethical not only because it is the best policy but also because it is solidly tied to the principles of restored truth. Everything we do should be guided by restored truth, by our conviction that once again prophets walk upon the earth, and we have the benefit, both through modern scripture and through their teachings, of the will of our Heavenly Father. It’s not just another Church. Joseph Smith really did see the Father and the Son, the priesthood is once again on the earth, and the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be, a new witness for Christ received by revelation and translated under the direct inspiration of our Heavenly Father. We must first secure our knowledge of these truths, and they will then become the foundation for everything else we do. That honesty and integrity in all things and with respect to all persons and institutions may be one of the results of that conviction is my prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

© Brigham Young University. All rights reserved.

Rex E. Lee was president of Brigham Young University when this devotional address was given on 5 September 1995.

Related Speeches

Something to Think About

“He Loveth That Which Is Right”

2 Minute Speech On The Ethics And Values In English

Good morning everyone present here, today I am going to give a speech on ethics and values. Live each day with a positive outlook and in accordance with your most cherished principles. You’ll have a lot to live for in every moment, says Ralph Marston. Unfortunately, as time goes on, the fabric of morality and ethics becomes less strong.  Moral principles can give your life direction and purpose. You have the power to guide your conduct toward positive and satisfying endeavors. You can build strong relationships with other people when you live your life in accordance with moral principles that are founded on honesty, compassion, courage, modesty, and forgiveness.

In conclusion, teachers and parents can play a crucial role in explaining to young children the importance of a sound moral value system. Values certainly suffer when pleasure takes priority. Low academic grades, addiction to bad habits, and failures are indicators of poor moral values which will further have serious repercussions on mental and physical health. Thank you.

Related Posts:

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Difference Between Morals and Ethics

Brittany is a health and lifestyle writer and former staffer at TODAY on NBC and CBS News. She's also contributed to dozens of magazines.

Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Stockarm / Getty Images

What Is Morality?

What are ethics, ethics, morals, and mental health, are ethics and morals relative, discovering your own ethics and morals, frequently asked questions.

Are ethics vs. morals really just the same thing? It's not uncommon to hear morality and ethics referenced in the same sentence. That said, they are two different things. While they definitely have a lot of commonalities (not to mention very similar definitions!), there are some distinct differences.

Below, we'll outline the difference between morals and ethics, why it matters, and how these two words play into daily life.

Morality is a person or society's idea of what is right or wrong, especially in regard to a person's behavior.

Maintaining this type of behavior allows people to live successfully in groups and society. That said, they require a personal adherence to the commitment of the greater good.

Morals have changed over time and based on location. For example, different countries can have different standards of morality. That said, researchers have determined that seven morals seem to transcend across the globe and across time:

• Bravery: Bravery has historically helped people determine hierarchies. People who demonstrate the ability to be brave in tough situations have historically been seen as leaders.
• Fairness: Think of terms like "meet in the middle" and the concept of taking turns.
• Defer to authority: Deferring to authority is important because it signifies that people will adhere to rules that attend to the greater good. This is necessary for a functioning society.
• Helping the group: Traditions exist to help us feel closer to our group. This way, you feel more supported, and a general sense of altruism is promoted.
• Loving your family: This is a more focused version of helping your group. It's the idea that loving and supporting your family allows you to raise people who will continue to uphold moral norms.
• Returning favors : This goes for society as a whole and specifies that people may avoid behaviors that aren't generally altruistic .
• Respecting others’ property: This goes back to settling disputes based on prior possession, which also ties in the idea of fairness.

Many of these seven morals require deferring short-term interests for the sake of the larger group. People who act purely out of self-interest can often be regarded as immoral or selfish.

Many scholars and researchers don't differentiate between morals and ethics, and that's because they're very similar. Many definitions even explain ethics as a set of moral principles.

The big difference when it comes to ethics is that it refers to community values more than personal values. Dictionary.com defines the term as a system of values that are "moral" as determined by a community.

In general, morals are considered guidelines that affect individuals, and ethics are considered guideposts for entire larger groups or communities. Ethics are also more culturally based than morals.

For example, the seven morals listed earlier transcend cultures, but there are certain rules, especially those in predominantly religious nations, that are determined by cultures that are not recognized around the world.

It's also common to hear the word ethics in medical communities or as the guidepost for other professions that impact larger groups.

For example, the Hippocratic Oath in medicine is an example of a largely accepted ethical practice. The American Medical Association even outlines nine distinct principles that are specified in medical settings. These include putting the patient's care above all else and promoting good health within communities.

Since morality and ethics can impact individuals and differ from community to community, research has aimed to integrate ethical principles into the practice of psychiatry.

That said, many people grow up adhering to a certain moral or ethical code within their families or communities. When your morals change over time, you might feel a sense of guilt and shame.

For example, many older people still believe that living with a significant other before marriage is immoral. This belief is dated and mostly unrecognized by younger generations, who often see living together as an important and even necessary step in a relationship that helps them make decisions about the future. Additionally, in many cities, living costs are too high for some people to live alone.

However, even if younger person understands that it's not wrong to live with their partner before marriage they might still feel guilty for doing so, especially if they were taught that doing so was immoral.

When dealing with guilt or shame, it's important to assess these feelings with a therapist or someone else that you trust.

Morality is certainly relative since it is determined individually from person to person. In addition, morals can be heavily influenced by families and even religious beliefs, as well as past experiences.

Ethics are relative to different communities and cultures. For example, the ethical guidelines for the medical community don't really have an impact on the people outside of that community. That said, these ethics are still important as they promote caring for the community as a whole.

This is important for young adults trying to figure out what values they want to carry into their own lives and future families. This can also determine how well young people create and stick to boundaries in their personal relationships .

Part of determining your individual moral code will involve overcoming feelings of guilt because it may differ from your upbringing. This doesn't mean that you're disrespecting your family, but rather that you're evolving.

Working with a therapist can help you better understand the moral code you want to adhere to and how it ties in aspects of your past and present understanding of the world.

A Word From Verywell

Understanding the difference between ethics vs. morals isn't always cut and dry. And it's OK if your moral and ethical codes don't directly align with the things you learned as a child. Part of growing up and finding autonomy in life involves learning to think for yourself. You determine what you will and will not allow in your life, and what boundaries are acceptable for you in your relationships.

That said, don't feel bad if your ideas of right and wrong change over time. This is a good thing that shows that you are willing to learn and understand those with differing ideas and opinions.

Working with a therapist could prove to be beneficial as you sort out what you do and find to be acceptable parts of your own personal moral code.

Morals refer to a sense of right or wrong. Ethics, on the other hand, refer more to principles of "good" versus "evil" that are generally agreed upon by a community. 

Examples of morals can include things such as not lying, being generous, being patient, and being loyal. Examples of ethics can include the ideals of honesty, integrity, respect, and loyalty.

Because morals involve a personal code of conduct, it is possible for people to be moral but not ethical. A person can follow their personal moral code without adhering to a more community-based sense of ethical standards. In some cases, a persons individual morals may be at odds with society's ethics.

Dictionary.com. Morality .

Curry OS, Mullins DA, Whitehouse H.  Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies . Current Anthropology. 2019;60(1):47-69. doi:10.1086/701478

Dictionary.com. Ethics .

Crowden A. Ethically Sensitive Mental Health Care: Is there a Need for a Unique Ethics for Psychiatry?   Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry . 2003;37(2):143-149.

By Brittany Loggins Brittany is a health and lifestyle writer and former staffer at TODAY on NBC and CBS News. She's also contributed to dozens of magazines.

Creating a Culture of Integrity in the Classroom

Students develop academic honesty when you build their moral vocabulary, respond appropriately to cheating, use meaningful quotes, and inspire them to believe in themselves.

Your content has been saved!

As we seek to prepare young people with skills for career success, Warren Buffett reminds us what makes great employees:

We live in an age where "the end justifies the means" has become the mantra of far too many adults who are role models for children. Nowhere have the circumstances and fallout been more disheartening than in the recent Atlanta school cheating scandal . Admittedly, the underlying issues that lead to dishonesty are often complex and multidimensional. People rationalize their actions with seemingly valid reasons. But as Buffett suggests, a lack of integrity comes with a high price tag.

How do children learn to be honest, respect societal norms, and act in ways consistent with the values, beliefs, and moral principles they claim to hold? How do teachers instill and reinforce a code of ethics in their classrooms when evidence suggests that high-stakes testing fosters a culture of dishonesty ? These are tough questions.

The Basis of Social Harmony and Action

Children are not born with integrity or the behaviors we associate with it, like honesty, honor, respect, authenticity, social responsibility, and the courage to stand up for what they believe is right. It is derived through a process of cultural socialization -- influences from all spheres of a child's life. In their school environments, students acquire these values and behaviors from adult role models and peers, and in particular, through an understanding of the principles of academic integrity. When students learn integrity in classroom settings, it helps them apply similar principles to other aspects of their lives.

Most K-12 educators recognize that the students they teach today will become the leaders of tomorrow. Academic curriculum is constantly updated to meet the increasing demands of a changing knowledge society. Yet we pay far less attention to the habits that build ethical leaders -- habits that develop during childhood and adolescence. A recent study noted that 40 percent of U.S. faculty members have ignored cases of cheating in their courses , an indication that teachers don't want to rock the boat or deal with angry parents. Research compiled by the Educational Testing Service suggests troubling issues related to the development of K-12 student integrity, including:

• In past decades, it was the struggling student who was more likely to cheat. Today, more above-average students are cheating as pressure mounts to be accepted to competitive colleges.
• Students who cheat feel justified in their behavior and unfairly disadvantaged if they approach their studies with integrity.
• Cheating begins in elementary school where children learn to bend rules to win competitive games against classmates. Young children believe cheating is wrong, but could be acceptable under certain circumstances.
• Middle school students feel increased pressure to be dishonest because there is more emphasis on grades.
• Cheating peaks in high school when 75 percent of students admit to some sort of academic misconduct.

Integrity is part of the Compass Advantage (a model designed for engaging families, schools, and communities in the principles of positive youth development) because integrity is the basis of social harmony and action. Despite societal forces that test integrity, children deserve a world that values truth, honesty, and justice. Linked by research to self-awareness, sociability, and the five other abilities on the compass, integrity is one of the 8 pathways to every student's success .

5 Ways to Increase Student Integrity

1. infuse integrity into the classroom culture..

Teachers make integrity the norm in their classrooms in several important ways. They clearly articulate expectations about academic integrity and the consequences of cheating. But they go beyond the issue of cheating to create a culture that rewards success beyond grades. If students have only grades to measure themselves, then cheating is often a justifiable strategy to beat the system. If students are also rewarded for their courage, hard work, determination, and respect for classmates, they see and understand that the process of learning comes first. This kind of culture fosters integrity.

2. Develop a moral vocabulary.

According to the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), the five fundamental values of academic integrity are:

• Responsibility
• Trustworthiness

Incorporate the teaching of these five values into the curriculum and help students use the vocabulary to discuss a variety of historical topics and current events. While dishonesty and disrespect flourish in civil society, ask students to find examples of how individuals stood up for their beliefs and values in ways that made a difference for themselves or for the world.

3. Respond appropriately when cheating occurs.

While teachers cannot control student behavior, they can respond with consistency when enforcing school and classroom policies. In a classroom culture that places learning first, dishonest behavior is a teachable moment. To help internalize learning, ensure that students reflect on and glean meaning from their behavior. Listen and show respect for their thinking, and then restate your expectations that dishonesty is never acceptable in your classroom.

4. Use quotes to ignite meaningful conversations.

Famous quotes can be used as conversation starters, prompting students to reflect on topics related to integrity, moral development, and other attitudes that help them develop positive work habits and respectful relationships. Elementary school teacher Steve Reifman uses a "quote of the day" as a positive morning exercise in his third and fourth grade classes. In his book Changing Kids' Lives One Quote at a Time , Reifman provides helpful facilitation tips and prompts for teachers to engage students in reflective conversations.

Quotes can be used with students at almost any age. For older students, they are often used as starters for journal or essay-writing projects. See a superb collection of quotes related to the five values of academic integrity (PDF) written by students at American University in Dubai. Also view famous quotes on the same five values, compiled by the ICAI.

5. Help students believe in themselves.

Students who stand up for principles in which they believe have high degrees of self-efficacy. In my study of students who developed integrity and a desire to become civically engaged, young people reported that their teachers helped them believe in themselves through their:

• Passion for teaching and giving back to the next generation
• Modeling a clear set of values and acting in ways that supported those values
• Commitment to giving freely of their time and talents
• Selflessness and acceptance of people different from themselves
• Ability to overcome obstacles and show students that success is possible

When young people learn to believe in themselves, dishonesty and disrespect no longer make much sense. Living with integrity becomes a way of life.

How have you developed a culture of integrity in your classroom?

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Why Morality Matters: An Introduction to Ethics by Scott B. Rae

• jeremy-bouma
• November 8, 2018
• Share Twitter Facebook

"Why be moral" is one question at the heart of Scott Rae’s bestselling introduction to ethics, Moral Choices , now in its Fourth Edition . Rae writes in the book's introduction:

Since the moral life and moral decision-making are the focal points of this book, you can see that I am assuming being moral matters, and significantly. If you decide that being moral is not very important, then you probably will not spend much time reading this or any other book on ethics. But if being moral is important to you, the content of this book will be helpful in shaping how you view morality. (11)

With its unique union of theory and application and its well-organized, easy-to-use design, Moral Choices has earned its place as the standard text for college ethics courses. This fourth edition offers extensive updates, revisions, and three brand new chapters all designed to help students develop a sound and current basis for making ethical decisions in today’s complex postmodern culture.

If you're an instructor of ethics, we invite you to request an exam copy of the new edition. C ontinue reading Rae's introduction to the book below and you'll discover how Rae's approach in Moral Choices can support your own teaching and strengthen the impact you make on your students' moral decision-making.

Imagine that you were able to live your life in such a way that you could do whatever you wanted to do, whenever you wanted to do it, and you would never get caught or face any consequences for your actions? That is, you could cheat on exams in school, plagiarize papers, sleep with whoever you wanted to, or embezzle money from your employer, and never worry about getting caught. In Plato’s classic work The Republic , the myth of Gyges sets out precisely this situation. In a parallel to Frodo putting on the ring in the film trilogy, The Lord of the Rings ,[1] Gyges was given the opportunity to live as an invisible entity, able to do anything he wanted without anyone discovering what he had done. That is, he could do whatever he wanted and would assuredly get away with it. Given the chance to live life like this, the question Plato raises is “Would a person want to be moral? And if so, why?”[2] After a good deal of dialogue, Plato concluded that being moral was inherently valuable, apart from any additional benefits it produced or harm that it enabled a person to avoid.

How would you respond to the question “Why be moral?” Since the moral life and moral decision-making are the focal points of this book, you can see that I am assuming being moral matters, and significantly. If you decide that being moral is not very important, then you probably will not spend much time reading this or any other book on ethics. But if being moral is important to you, the content of this book will be helpful in shaping how you view morality.

Morality and the Good Life/Society

Morality matters because most people, when they are genuinely honest with themselves, associate doing well in life with being a good person. Having moral character is still essential to most people’s conceptions of what makes a person flourish in his or her life. For example, it is difficult to imagine a person being considered a success in life if he has gained his wealth dishonestly. It is equally difficult to call a person a success who is at the top of his profession but cheats on his wife, abuses his children, and drinks too much. On the other hand, we rightly hold up a person like Mother Teresa as a model of living a good life, even though she lacked most material goods that society values. One of the principal reasons for being moral is that it is central to most concepts of human fulfillment. For the Christian, being moral is critical to a life that seeks to honor God. We could say that being moral is inherently good because it is foundational to a person’s flourishing in life, since doing well in life and being a good person still go together for most people.

The same holds true for society as a whole. Most people would not want to live in a society in which morality was unimportant, in which conceptions of right and wrong carried little weight. In fact, it is unlikely that any sort of civilized society could continue unless it had concern for key moral values, such as fairness, justice, truthfulness, and compassion. Ethics are important because they give direction to people and societies who have some sense that they cannot flourish without being moral. This is sometimes referred to as social contract theory , which maintains that as a society, people generally agree to abide by certain moral rules and standards for the sake of social order and peace.[3] Thomas Hobbes, for example, insists that something like this social contract is necessary if societies are to avoid his “state of nature,” which he describes as a war of all against all. This type of society Hobbes wanted to avoid is exemplified in William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies in which a social order without morality degenerates into a world that very few people would want to live.

Many thoughtful observers of today’s culture are growing increasingly concerned about a breakdown in morality, particularly among students and young adults. They cite phenomena such as drug use, alcoholism, teenage pregnancies, violence, juvenile delinquency, crime, and sexually transmitted diseases as evidence of the moral fabric of society coming unraveled. Some even suggest that the 2016 US Presidential election is further evidence of character and morality being marginalized. University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter pointedly maintains, “Character is dead. Attempts to revive it will yield little. Its time has passed.”[4] He argues that, culturally, we want a renewal of morality, but we want it without the commitments that accompany a rekindling of the importance of character and ethics. He puts it this way:

We want a renewal of character in our day, but we don’t really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates and compels. This price is too high for us to pay (as a culture). We want character, but without unyielding conviction; we want strong morality, but without the emotional burden of guilt and shame; we want virtue, but without particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist on it; we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom. In short, we want what we cannot possibly have on the terms we want it.[5]

What Hunter means by a “creedal order” is a framework for morality that has substantial authority and is binding on individuals and communities. It is not necessarily a religious framework, but Hunter is not optimistic about a renewal of character apart from some kind of religious reinforcement of moral commitments.

Morality and One’s Worldview

Morality matters because moral questions are at the core of life’s most vital issues. Morality is primarily concerned with questions of right and wrong, the ability to distinguish between the two, and the justification of the distinction. Closely related are such questions as: What is a good person? What things are morally praiseworthy? What constitutes a good life? And what would a good society look like? These are fundamental to your view of the world. You cannot formulate an adequate worldview without providing answers to these moral questions.[6] Your view of morality is connected to other critical questions that your worldview must answer. Everyone has a worldview, that is, a set of intellectual lenses through which a person sees the world. Of course, not everyone’s worldview is well thought out or entirely consistent; nonetheless, everyone has one. In fact, when someone makes a decision for Christian faith, he or she not only begins a relationship with God but also adopts a new set of lenses through which to see the world. The same is basically true of adopting other faiths or no faith—that commitment comes with a worldview, a set of ideas to which you are also committed. You cannot have an adequate worldview without a view of morality.

A person’s worldview consists of the way a person answers questions about metaphysics , which ask what is real, or what is the nature of reality? Metaphysics means “beyond the physical,” and it deals with questions of what exists—is it just the physical world (known as naturalism), or are there real things that exist outside the physical world? Your worldview also involves a viewpoint about epistemology (which comes from two Greek words meaning “the study of knowledge”), which asks how we know what we know. It also involves a view about anthropology (which also comes from two Greek words which mean “the study of man [humanity]”), which asks what a person is (and, by extension, what happens to a person after death). Anthropology addresses the issues of human personhood: Is a person simply a collection of body parts and physical properties, or does a person consist of something else, something immaterial, like a soul? Your answers to the questions about morality mentioned above connect to other aspects of your worldview, hopefully consistently!

For example, your view of metaphysics makes a substantial difference in how you view morality. If God exists, then your view of morality, to be consistent, should take that into account. You might also conclude that God has ordered his world so that morality is built into its framework. If your worldview has no place for God, you might conclude that morality is strictly a human creation. Or you might conclude that morality arose as a result of an evolutionary adaptive advantage, that human beings saw the advantage for survival in having communities that are governed by moral obligations.

Likewise, your anthropology is closely connected to your view of metaphysics. If you are a naturalist, human beings are nothing more than a collection of parts and properties with no essence that continues through time and change. How you view the morality of many bioethical issues depends on your view of human persons—what are persons, and when does human personhood begin and end?[7] A person’s position on abortion, physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia, reproductive technologies, and enhancement biotechnology all depend on your view of human persons, which is often assumed and not made explicit.

Your view of epistemology is also very important for understanding how you come to know your moral obligations. If you are an epistemological skeptic, you might hold that even if morality does exist, human beings cannot know its demands. But if you are more of an epistemological realist, you might conclude that morality can be known and what we can know does correspond to what actually exists. How, specifically, it can be known helps to distinguish a divine command view of morality from a natural law view.

Epistemology from a Christian worldview presumes that there is such a thing as genuine moral knowledge. But the existence of genuine moral knowledge is being increasingly called into question in philosophy today as a result of the cultural dominance of naturalism . This demonstrates how a person’s view of epistemology is connected to his or her view of metaphysics. Among other things, the naturalist metaphysic maintains that all reality is reducible to that which can be perceived with one’s senses. The implication for epistemology is that there is nothing that is real or that counts for knowledge that is not verifiable by the senses. As a result, moral knowledge has been reduced to the realm of belief and is considered parallel to religious beliefs, which the culture widely holds are not verifiable. The theist maintains that moral knowledge is genuine knowledge just like scientific knowledge—that “murder is wrong” can be known as true and cannot be reduced to subjective opinion or belief without the risk of all morality being subjective. The theist argues that no one consistently lives as if morality is entirely subjective and that moral truths do exist and can be known.[8]

Morality and Diversity/Pluralism

Morality matters because, in our increasingly diverse global culture, it is critical for solving what may be the most important issue for our survival—namely, getting along with each other peacefully despite a plethora of irreconcilable differences. Os Guinness, in The Global Public Square , identifies the problem as such: “How do we live with our deepest differences, especially when those differences are religious and ideological, and when those differences concern matters of our common public life. In short, how do we create a global public square and make the world safer for diversity?”[9] The most obvious of these conflicts, one that has grown increasingly violent and intolerant in recent years, is between radical Islam and Western culture. But others, though less violent, are showing evidence of increasing intolerance of those who disagree. Take, for example, the response to businesses that choose not to provide services to same-sex wedding ceremonies. The well-publicized bakers and florists, and even Memories Pizza, who, out of sincere religious convictions, opted not to serve a same-sex wedding, found their livelihood destroyed as a consequence.[10] Or take Brendan Eich, founder and former CEO of Mozilla. Eich was forced out of his position because he contributed a small amount of money to Proposition 8 in California.[11] In addition, some state university systems and private colleges no longer allow some religious organizations and clubs to have a presence on campus because of their views. Increasingly, religious institutions, including schools, nonprofits, and businesses run by religious believers are finding themselves subject to highly coercive measures that would force them to abandon deeply held religious views or face severe sanctions that would force many out of business.

Morality matters because important virtues and moral principles are at stake in these public issues and because ethics is our best hope for establishing a framework for living together peacefully despite our ideological differences. Guinness insists that what we need goes beyond the traditional idea of religious freedom to what he calls “soul freedom,” which others have referred to as “freedom of conscience.” This extension of religious freedom is necessary because soul freedom applies to all human beings, whether or not they have religious faith. Guinness insists,

Indispensable to solving these challenges is the extension of soul freedom for all. Soul freedom is the inviolable freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief that alone does full justice to the dictates of our humanity. . . . It best expresses human dignity and agency; it promotes freedom and justice for all; it fosters healthy giving, caring, peaceful and stable societies; and it acts as a bulwark against the countless current abuses of power and the equally countless brutal oppressions of human dignity. . . . Soul freedom is about nothing less than our freedom and responsibility to be fully human and to live together in thriving and beneficial communities.[12]

Mutual respect, tolerance, and peaceful resolution of conflicts—these are moral values, so the issue that Guinness raises is fundamentally a moral one. In order to deal with the increasing secularization of the culture, the privatization of faith that often results from the tensions raised by a secular culture, and the changing notion of tolerance (from treating people well with whom you disagree, to actually agreeing with their ideas), we require a new sense of moral pluralism.[13]

Morality and the Professions

Morality matters because practitioners in a wide variety of professions deal with moral questions, whether or not they realize it. For example, morality is fundamental to politics, since politics and law concern the way people ought to order their lives together in society. In addition, medicine and the sciences, such as genetics and molecular biology, have numerous moral overtones because they deal with the morally charged areas of life and death. Further, business practices provide a variety of ethical minefields that can challenge the integrity of the men and women striving to succeed in an ever more competitive global economy.

Morality matters because you face moral choices every day, both in the workplace and in your private life. Every so often you will face emotionally wrenching moral dilemmas that have no easy answers. Many decisions you make on a day-to-day basis also involve questions of right and wrong, some of which may have easy answers that are difficult to carry out. Ethics provides the basis for those decisions. Most people have an idea of what sorts of things are right and wrong. Explaining why you think something is right or wrong is altogether another question. The basis on which you make moral choices is often as important as the choices themselves. Yet few people have adequately considered how they justify their conceptions of right and wrong.

Finally, morality matters because debates on several issues, including abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, gun control, and capital punishment seem endless and irreconcilable, and they promise to continue far into the future. What many of these issues share is a fundamental disagreement over the ultimate source of moral authority . Some individuals hold that moral authority is ultimately a human construction, while others insist that moral authority comes from some transcendent source that is beyond human beings, such as a revelation from God or nature. As you read the newspaper and various news magazines and listen to television news, you will be increasingly aware of the importance of these issues. You will also notice that, apart from legal intervention, most of these issues are no closer to being resolved today than they were ten years ago.

Not only does intractable debate characterize these issues, but society has a general sense of bewilderment over many other issues. Many of these involve matters of science and technology that have run far ahead of ethical reflection. For example, genetic testing, gene editing, enhancement biotechnology, gender selection, various reproductive technologies, and the use of human embryonic stem cells in the treatment of certain diseases all involve moral dilemmas that are far from resolved. Most observers in these areas acknowledge that technology has outpaced society’s ability to determine the moral parameters for its use. Yet there remains a general sense that we need ethics to deal with our increasingly technological society.

More people have an interest in ethics today than at any other time in the recent past. Some of that interest is due to the complex issues spawned by technology, while others have an alarming sense of a general moral decline in society. In addition, the numerous scandals that have rocked the business community and other professions have left some to ask if “business ethics” and “professional ethics” are indeed oxymora. Some people are aware of the need to stress ethics and character in various educational arenas, including public schools. Many are also realizing that the value-neutral approach to education is not actually value neutral at all, and some even suggest that such value neutrality is impossible. Although there is a greater emphasis on character in view of well-publicized business ethics failures, ethics helps determine which character traits are admirable and worth cultivating.

Overview of the Book

As you read this book, you will be exposed both to ethical theory and to the application of that theory to the most pressing moral issues of the day. After this introductory chapter, we will consider how to think about morality. I will distinguish between subjective and objective views of morality and make the case for seeing morality as something objective, something we can know. That is, I will defend the view known as moral realism and contrast it with an antirealist view of ethics. Throughout the ages, many philosophers, even some whose inquiries predate the Bible, have wrestled with the questions of ethics and arrived at somewhat different answers. Recognizing, then, that the Bible is not the only source of ethical wisdom, chapter 2 provides a look at some other modes of moral reasoning, such as relativism, utilitarianism, and ethical egoism. We will also examine the major figures who systematized them, including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant. These must be brief, but I have included resources, especially original sources, should you wish to study any of these individuals or systems further. For each alternative approach to ethics, I will describe the system and its major advocate, present the strong points of the system, compare it with Scripture, and critique the system, both from within the system itself and from the perspective of Christian ethics. In order to be able to converse with an increasingly secular world about ethics and morality, you need exposure to the ways in which other people have done ethics. Some of these approaches have things to offer to a Christian ethic and aspects of them can fit comfortably in that framework.

Believing that morality ultimately issues from the character of God, I find the most critical and foundational element of ethics to be the direction that God provides, both in his Word (i.e., special revelation) and outside his Word (i.e., general revelation). Chapter 3 will outline the distinctive elements of Christian ethics. Christian ethics is an enormous topic. This entire book could be about Christian ethics. Some works are entirely devoted to this subject. Here you will simply get a synthesis of the main parameters of biblical ethics.

Chapter 4 contains a model for making moral decisions and illustrates its use on some particularly knotty moral dilemmas. This model can be used in virtually any setting and does not require a particular worldview commitment for its profitable use, though it does presume a blend of deontological principles and virtues. I offer this model not as a type of computer program for generating correct moral decisions, but as a guideline to ensure that all the bases are covered when you make moral decisions. This chapter begins to build the bridge from theory to application that will be more clearly defined in subsequent chapters.

Chapters 5 through 16 deal with some of the current issues that are hotly debated in the culture at large. Discussion in these chapters will recognize the way these issues affect people individually (personal ethics) as well as how they affect public policy, if they do (social ethics). Since medical ethics involves some of the most frequently debated and complex issues, chapters 5 through 8 discuss such issues as abortion, reproductive/genetic technologies, and assisted suicide. Staying within the arena of ethics pertaining to life and death, chapter 9 addresses the issue of capital punishment. Chapter 10 takes up one of the longest running moral debates, the morality of war, which has some new questions raised, particularly in the ongoing war on terrorism. Chapter 11 addresses the subject of sexual ethics, which includes sexual orientation, same-sex marriage, and birth control. Chapter 12 will take up creation care and environmental ethics and deal with more recent issues such as climate change. Chapter 13 will address the intersection of ethics and economics, with an introduction to business ethics and a brief look at the moral assessment of the economic system of global capitalism. Chapter 14 will take up the controversial matter of violence and gun control, made more urgent with the recent mass shootings that have drawn such public attention. Chapter 15 will address issues of race, gender, and diversity, particularly the ethical issues raised by the cultural emphasis on diversity. Finally, chapter 16 will deal with the pressing issues related to immigration both in the United States and in Europe, though the discussion of immigration is quite different in those two contexts.

Introducing Key Terms and Distinctions in Ethics

One of the difficult aspects of studying a subject like ethics is that you are introduced to many terms with which you may be unfamiliar. For example, new members of the hospital ethics committee with whom I consulted were often unacquainted with terminology customarily used by ethicists. So, to keep you from the initial shock of jumping headfirst into a new subject, this section will introduce you to some of the key terms that you will often see as you read this book.

Most people use the terms morality and ethics interchangeably. Technically, morality refers to the actual content of right and wrong, and ethics refers to the process of determining, or discovering, right and wrong. In other words, morality deals with moral knowledge and ethics with moral reasoning and justification . Thus, ethics is both an art and a science. It does involve precision like the sciences, but like art, it is an inexact and sometimes intuitive discipline. Morality is the end result of ethical deliberation, the substance of right and wrong.

Major Categories

Three broad categories have traditionally fallen under the heading of ethics. They include (1) descriptive ethics , (2) normative ethics , and (3) metaethics . Normative ethics will be the primary concern in this book. We will be applying our normative ethic to various current issues, so, to be entirely accurate, we will be doing normative applied ethics in chapters 5–16.

First, descriptive ethics is a sociological or anthropological discipline that attempts to describe the morals of a particular society, often by studying other cultures. Anthropologists often use it in their fieldwork to describe the moral distinctives of other cultures.

Second, normative ethics refers to the discipline that produces moral norms or rules. Most systems of ethics are designed to tell you what is normative for individual and/or group behavior, or what is right and wrong, both generally and in specific circumstances. Normative ethics prescribes moral behavior, whereas descriptive ethics describes moral behavior. When we examine important moral issues in later chapters, we will be trying to establish a set of norms to apply to that particular issue. When most people debate about ethics, they are debating normative ethics, that is, what the moral norms should be and how those norms apply to the issues at hand.

Of course, ethics is not the only normative discipline that is interesting and relevant to ethics.[14] For example, the law produces legal norms but not necessarily moral ones, although law and morality overlap significantly. In addition, there are norms of good taste and social acceptability, which we call etiquette. Further, religion produces behavioral norms, often defined by a religious authority such as a pastor or other church official, that govern one’s relationship to God. In chapter 3 we will see that Christian ethics includes a substantial overlap between duties with respect to a person’s relationship to God and duties with respect to the community.

Third, metaethics is an area of ethics that investigates the meaning of moral language, or the epistemology of ethics, and also considers the justification of ethical theories and judgments. For example, it focuses on the meaning of the major terms used in ethics, such as right , good , and just . The primary focus of technical philosophers, metaethics has been receiving more attention from a popular audience today since more people are insisting that the language of right and wrong is nothing more than an expression of personal preferences. Accordingly, some argue that the judgment that pedophilia is wrong is not a statement about right and wrong but simply a personal distaste for pedophilia. Morality is thus reduced to matters of taste and preference and has little to do with right and wrong. We will look at this later in chapter 2 when we discuss emotivism.

When discussing whether someone or something is moral, it helps to be very specific. Normally, making a moral assessment involves at least four specific considerations.[15] First, you should consider the action itself. This is usually the focus of a moral assessment, but it is hardly the only aspect of moral evaluation. Second, you should evaluate the motive of the person (called the “moral actor”) performing the action. In some cases the motive is the only difference between two otherwise identical actions. For example, motive is often the only difference between giving a gift and bribery. Of course, sometimes you might not be able to determine the motive, in which case it cannot be assessed. In many cases, the assessment of motives should be held tentatively and cautiously given our lack of knowledge of someone’s thinking. Third, you should evaluate the consequences of your actions and decisions. Doing so does not necessarily commit you to a utilitarian framework for ethics, and regardless of your ethical framework, it is unwise to entirely ignore the consequences of your actions. We will discuss this further in chapter 2 when we get to utilitarianism. Fourth, although a bit more difficult to do than the previous three considerations, you should attempt to evaluate the character of the moral actor. Character is the tendency of a person to act in predictable ways over time. Virtue theorists have led the way in insisting that any ethic that does not concern itself with character and virtue is incomplete and reduces ethics to a mere preoccupation with actions, specifically moral dilemmas that people rarely face.

We evaluate character more often than we think. For example, when we decide who we can trust, we are assessing that person’s character, determining whether he or she is trustworthy. We certainly evaluate character when we make decisions about who we will marry, since character is critical to a good marriage. And we are usually asked to evaluate character when we write letters of reference for people. So the assessment of character is not something that should be foreign to us, though we realize that, like our judgment of motives, we may not have all the information we need to make an accurate assessment. In those cases our appraisal must remain somewhat tentative.

Ethical Systems

Moral theories, in their most basic classification, can be either cognitive systems, or noncognitive systems. Noncognitive systems, by definition, do not render judgments about the truth-value of ethical statements because for advocates of noncognitivism moral statements have no truth-value. They are simply expressions of personal approval or disapproval of the action in question. They have no value other than that expression and no relevance to anyone other than the person making the expression. According to noncognitivism, saying “adultery is wrong” is not making a statement that can be either true or false; it is saying, “I disapprove of adultery.” We will look at this further in chapter 2 when we take up the subject of emotivism. Most normative ethical systems are cognitive systems. These different styles of moral reasoning may be classified as either action-oriented or virtue-based systems. Under these two major divisions are three subcategories by which ethical systems may be further classified: deontological systems, teleological systems, and relativist systems. Most of the technical terms have to do with the action-oriented systems.

First, deontological systems are systems that are based on principles in which actions (or character, or even intentions) are inherently right or wrong. There are three primary deontological systems: (1) divine command theory , (2) natural law , and (3) ethical rationalism . Christians tend to be more deontologically oriented because of the emphasis in Christian ethics on the commands of God as moral absolutes and guiding principles. But Christian ethics have a substantial place for virtue ethics too, since a major part of the Christian moral life involves emulating the character traits of Christ and exemplifying the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:13–24).

Second, teleological systems are systems in which the morality of an action is based on the result produced by an action. Since the consequences rather than principles determine right actions for teleological systems, no action is inherently right or wrong in a teleological system. Whether an action is right or wrong depends on the consequences of that action. The primary form of teleological ethics is called utilitarianism , which holds that the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number is the moral choice. More specifically, utilitarianism defines the good generally as the greatest pleasure, or preference satisfaction, and seeks that for the greatest number. Another form of teleological ethics is called ethical egoism , which maintains that the right thing to do is whatever is in a person’s self-interest. Thus, for the ethical egoist the only consequence that matters is whether it advances his or her own self-interest.

Third, relativist systems refer to ethical systems in which right and wrong are not absolute and unchanging but relative to one’s culture (cultural relativism) or one’s own personal preferences (moral subjectivism). Both forms of relativism are widely embraced today. With the current emphasis on multiculturalism and appreciation for the cultural diversity that exists in much of the world, and the importance of a culture’s values in its self-definition, it should not surprise us that there is a movement toward accepting every cultures’ values as equally valid, which is the definition of cultural relativism. Moral subjectivism is advocated every time someone says, “Whatever is right for you is morally right, but what’s right for me is also morally right!” Such moral subjectivism is frequently seen in one’s view of sexual morality, in which a person is particularly sensitive to having a view forced on him or her, thus reducing sexual ethics to personal preference. This view of morality is often associated with a postmodern view of the world, in which objective truth and objective morality are called into question.[16]

Morality and the Law

As you might expect, there is substantial overlap between what is legal and what is moral. Most, if not all laws, have some moral overtones to them. Even laws regarding driving on the correct side of the road imply a respect for life and property. We rightly assume that the person who drives on the wrong side of the road and ignores other similar traffic laws has respect for neither life nor property. Most people hold that for laws to be valid they must have some connection to widely shared moral principles; that is, a law that violates society’s widely held values cannot be a valid one. Thus, in most cases there is a significant connection between law and morality.[17] This is not always the case, and thus there are occasions in which civil disobedience is morally justified.

As a general rule, we will assume that the law is the moral minimum . Obeying the law is the beginning of our moral obligations, not the end. Be careful about the person who insists, “If it’s legal, then it must be moral.” That view is that the law is the moral maximum, not the minimum. There are many things that are immoral that are not illegal. Take adultery for example. Most people would agree that cheating on one’s spouse is immoral, but no one (at least in the West) goes to jail for it. In addition, lying is immoral in most cases; but only in certain contexts, such as a court of law, would someone be prosecuted for lying. In most cases violating the law is immoral, except in rare cases where the law requires a person to do something that is unethical. For example, if the law required physicians to perform abortions for everyone who requested one, many physicians would consider that an immoral law, and they would be free to engage in civil disobedience—that is, they would follow their norms of morality, violate the law, and take whatever consequences the law meted out. But cases of civil disobedience are somewhat rare today, but when they occur, the person may follow the biblical dictum that “we must obey God rather than human beings” (Acts 5:29).[18]

So the law is the moral minimum. It is the moral floor, not the ceiling! The majority of our most interesting moral dilemmas occur when confronted with the question of how far beyond what the law requires our morality demands us to go. In other words, how far beyond mere compliance with the law do my moral convictions tell me I have to go? Most of the pressing demands of morality are in those spaces where the law is not definitive, where the law is silent, or where the law allows for something unethical.

However, many things that are unethical ought also to be illegal. For example, fraud is immoral, and most forms of fraud are also illegal, and justifiably so. I’m sure you can think of many other immoral activities that should be illegal, such as murder, child abuse, and sexual assault. Be careful of the person who insists, “You can’t legislate morality!” Whether that statement is true depends on what is meant by “morality.” If moral beliefs, motives, or intentions are meant, then those certainly cannot be legislated. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and speech, was written to keep the state out of the business of imposing beliefs on its citizens. A person’s genuine moral intent is changed by persuasion, not coercion, since intent has to do with one’s free choices. But if by morality one means “moral behavior,” then that can be, and is, legislated virtually every day around the world. Some cultures, such as Islamic cultures, use the force of law more routinely to enforce private moral behavior among consenting adults. But virtually every law is the imposition of someone’s morality, given the overlap between most laws and the moral principles that undergird them.

Some of the issues we will take up in the later chapters raise this question of whether a moral position should also be legislated in terms of public policy. For example, issues such as abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning, genetic privacy, and same-sex marriage raise important questions of what public policy should be on these matters. A variety of interest groups, including religious ones, attempt to influence what the law should be on these and other issues.

When religious groups or individuals get involved in public policy, it invariably raises questions about “the separation of church and state.” As originally intended, the First Amendment, which established religious freedom, only prohibited the federal government from establishing federally supported and federally sanctioned churches, as had been done in Europe with disastrous results, including religious wars and harsh persecution. The First Amendment guaranteed religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of a national church. The government was supposed to be neutral toward all religious groups. This clearly emphasized freedom of religion.

From the separation of church and state, it did not follow that the state was to be neutral or hostile toward religion in general. Many of the founding fathers who wrote parts of the Bill of Rights were very clear that a democracy needed the moral restraints and the grounding for rights that religion provided.[19] The founding fathers never imagined a society in which the state would be neutral or hostile toward the value of religion for civil society. As A. James Reichley of the Brookings Institution said:

The founders’ belief in the wisdom of placing civil society within a framework of religious values formed part of their reason for enacting the free exercise clause. The First Amendment is no more neutral of the general value of religion than it is on the general value of the free exchange of ideas or an independent press. The virtually unanimous view among the founders [is] that functional separation between church and state should be maintained without threatening the support and guidance received by republican government from religion.[20]

Until recently, religious groups have freely attempted to influence public policy without anyone objecting that they are violating the separation of church and state.

You will undoubtedly be introduced to other new terms and ideas as you read this book. But don’t let the terminology intimidate you. Every thoughtful person should be concerned about and interested in ethics, since it addresses the ultimate questions about the good life, the good person, and the good society. As Socrates said in Plato’s Republic , “We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.”

Chapter Review

• How would you answer the question “Why be moral?”
• What is the myth of Gyges, and how does it relate to the question “Why be moral?”
• How is ethics important in fields such as business, medicine, and politics?
• How would you distinguish between ethics and morality?
• What are descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics?
• When a moral assessment is made, what must be assessed besides the action?
• What is the difference between deontological and teleological systems of ethics?
• How would you describe the relationship between morality and the law?
• What would you say to someone who maintains that you can’t legislate morality?

As with previous editions, Rae guides students in thinking critically and biblically about a range of issues—from abortion to euthanasia, sexual ethics to the morality of war. This fourth edition adds several contemporary ethical issues for discussion and consideration, including :

• Creation Care
• Animal Rights
• Gun-Control
• Race, Gender, and Diversity
• Immigration, Refugees, and Border Control

This introduction to ethics is particularly built with students in mind to help them navigate crucial moral choices. If you're an instructor, request an exam copy of the new fourth edition today and consider it for one of your ethics courses.

For Further Reading

Audi, Robert. Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State . New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Guinness, Os. The Global Public Square . Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2013. Inazu, John D. Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong . 7 th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2011.

[1] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (London: Allen & Unwin,1954); Tolkien, The Two Towers (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954); Tolkien, The Return of the King (London: Allen & Unwin, 1955).

[2] Technically, the Republic is concerned with the question of justice—in Gyges case, whether a person would still desire to be just. But for Plato, justice for an individual was closely associated with virtue, since it was about justice in a person’s soul, so the illustration still fits the question “Why be moral?”

[3] Louis P. Pojman and James Fieser, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong , 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2012), 65–70.

[4] James Davison Hunter, The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good and Evil (New York: Basic Books, 2008), xiii.

[5] Hunter, The Death of Character , xv.

[6] For further discussion on worldview, see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door , 4 th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004); J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998).

[7] For a good example of the connection between anthropology and ethics, see Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018).

[8] For further discussion of this topic, see R. Scott Smith, In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the Fact-Value Dichotomy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014).

[9] Os Guinness, The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2013), 13.

[10] Conor Friedersdorf, “Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed?,” The Atlantic , April 3, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/ 2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/? utm_source=eb.

[11] Conor Friedersdorf, “Mozilla’s Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values,” The Atlantic , April 4, 2014, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/ mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/?utm_source=eb.

[12] Guinness, The Global Public Square , 14.

[13] See John D. Inazu, Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).

[14] Pojman and Fieser, Ethics , 3–7.

[15] Pojman and Fieser, Ethics , 8–11.

[16] For further reading on the impact of postmodernism and ethics, see Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000). See especially ch. 8, “Ethics without Reality—Postmodernist Style.”

[17] The classic discussion on the relationship between law and morality is in the following works: H. L. A. Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality (London: Oxford University Press, 1963); Lord Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (London: Oxford University Press, 1965); the debate between Hart and Harvard law professor Lon Fuller in Hart’s, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” Harvard Law Review 71 (February 1958): 593–629; and Fuller’s “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” Harvard Law Review 71 (February 1958): 630–72. The debate is summarized in Scott B. Rae, The Ethics of Commercial Surrogate Motherhood: Brave New Families (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), 126–29.

[18] See the writings of Martin Luther King on this subject, especially “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in his book Why We Can’t Wait (New York: Signet, 1964).

[19] Here is a sample of the founding fathers’ view of religion in public life: Thomas Jefferson said, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” It seems clear that, as Jefferson wrote in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, rights and liberties are ultimately theologically grounded and need religious nurture in order to be maintained. He further stated that “religion should be regarded as a supplement to law in the government of men and as the alpha and omega of the moral law.”

James Madison , writing in the government charter for the Northwest Territory, said, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged.” Here Madison, representing Congress, is calling upon the government to promote religious and moral education, which today would be considered a violation of the separation of church and state.

George Washington , speaking in his farewell address at the end of his second presidency, said, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason, and experience forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Benjamin Franklin , writing in his plan for public education, said, “[History shows] the necessity of a public religion, the advantage of a religious character among private persons and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. [The great mass of men and women] have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and to retain them in the practice of it until it becomes habitual.” All of the above citations are from A. James Reichley, Religion in American Public Life (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1985), 89–106.

[20] Reichley, Religion in American Public Life , 113.

Thank you! Sign up complete.

Ethics and Morality

Morality, Ethics, Evil, Greed

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.

Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts and reactions. It's a subjective concept, and many people have strong and stubborn beliefs about what's right and wrong that can place them in direct contrast to the moral beliefs of others. Yet even though morals may vary from person to person, religion to religion, and culture to culture, many have been found to be universal, stemming from basic human emotions.

• The Science of Being Virtuous
• Understanding Amorality
• The Stages of Moral Development

Those who are considered morally good are said to be virtuous, holding themselves to high ethical standards, while those viewed as morally bad are thought of as wicked, sinful, or even criminal. Morality was a key concern of Aristotle, who first studied questions such as “What is moral responsibility?” and “What does it take for a human being to be virtuous?”

We used to think that people are born with a blank slate, but research has shown that people have an innate sense of morality . Of course, parents and the greater society can certainly nurture and develop morality and ethics in children.

Humans are ethical and moral regardless of religion and God. People are not fundamentally good nor are they fundamentally evil. However, a Pew study found that atheists are much less likely than theists to believe that there are "absolute standards of right and wrong." In effect, atheism does not undermine morality, but the atheist’s conception of morality may depart from that of the traditional theist.

Animals are like humans—and humans are animals, after all. Many studies have been conducted across animal species, and more than 90 percent of their behavior is what can be identified as “prosocial” or positive. Plus, you won’t find mass warfare in animals as you do in humans. Hence, in a way, you can say that animals are more moral than humans.

The examination of moral psychology involves the study of moral philosophy but the field is more concerned with how a person comes to make a right or wrong decision, rather than what sort of decisions he or she should have made. Character, reasoning, responsibility, and altruism , among other areas, also come into play, as does the development of morality.

The seven deadly sins were first enumerated in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I, and represent the sweep of immoral behavior. Also known as the cardinal sins or seven deadly vices, they are vanity, jealousy , anger , laziness, greed, gluttony, and lust. People who demonstrate these immoral behaviors are often said to be flawed in character. Some modern thinkers suggest that virtue often disguises a hidden vice; it just depends on where we tip the scale .

An amoral person has no sense of, or care for, what is right or wrong. There is no regard for either morality or immorality. Conversely, an immoral person knows the difference, yet he does the wrong thing, regardless. The amoral politician, for example, has no conscience and makes choices based on his own personal needs; he is oblivious to whether his actions are right or wrong.

One could argue that the actions of Wells Fargo, for example, were amoral if the bank had no sense of right or wrong. In the 2016 fraud scandal, the bank created fraudulent savings and checking accounts for millions of clients, unbeknownst to them. Of course, if the bank knew what it was doing all along, then the scandal would be labeled immoral.

Everyone tells white lies to a degree, and often the lie is done for the greater good. But the idea that a small percentage of people tell the lion’s share of lies is the Pareto principle, the law of the vital few. It is 20 percent of the population that accounts for 80 percent of a behavior.

We do know what is right from wrong . If you harm and injure another person, that is wrong. However, what is right for one person, may well be wrong for another. A good example of this dichotomy is the religious conservative who thinks that a woman’s right to her body is morally wrong. In this case, one’s ethics are based on one’s values; and the moral divide between values can be vast.

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg established his stages of moral development in 1958. This framework has led to current research into moral psychology. Kohlberg's work addresses the process of how we think of right and wrong and is based on Jean Piaget's theory of moral judgment for children. His stages include pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional, and what we learn in one stage is integrated into the subsequent stages.

The pre-conventional stage is driven by obedience and punishment . This is a child's view of what is right or wrong. Examples of this thinking: “I hit my brother and I received a time-out.” “How can I avoid punishment?” “What's in it for me?” 

The conventional stage is when we accept societal views on rights and wrongs. In this stage people follow rules with a  good boy  and nice girl  orientation. An example of this thinking: “Do it for me.” This stage also includes law-and-order morality: “Do your duty.”

The post-conventional stage is more abstract: “Your right and wrong is not my right and wrong.” This stage goes beyond social norms and an individual develops his own moral compass, sticking to personal principles of what is ethical or not.

The V.I.P., a very important or influential person, can engender feelings of awe in those around him or her. What are some of the issues when treating a V.I.P.?

Social estrangements famously lead to adverse outcomes. But it gets worse: A single estrangement may well lead to dozens of other estrangements, wreaking havoc on one's world.

Basic humanity motivates respectful, helpful, valuing, nurturing, protective, and altruistic behaviors. In adversity, it motivates sacrifice. In an emergency, it motivates rescue.

Personal Perspective: Being attacked by an owl taught me the importance of cultivating curiosity, building understanding, and improving communication.

Envy can’t celebrate the victories of other people. It is insecure and insatiable, and it will always have more work to do to assert itself as superior. Envy is exhausting.

A new “pre-publication study” suggests that separating “Do I want to write this book?” from “Should I publish it?” could be an important principle for the literary world.

My prior research findings on the effects of reading narratives about eating disorders made it important to ask difficult questions about the one I’d just written.

What do you do when someone you're talking to makes a slur against a marginalized group? Must we say something, or is it enough to stay silent? Let's see what philosophers say.

Discover simple ways to build better habits, make balanced choices, and understand your emotions.

In a recent U.S. study on public attitudes toward animal protection, the majority of respondents indicated support for policies that would reduce animal suffering.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Essay on Ethics in English for Children and Students

Table of Contents

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that defines the concepts of right and wrong within a society. The ethics defined by various societies are more or less the same. The concept is simple however since each human being is different from the other hence it can be a cause of conflict at times.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Ethics and aesthetics both are the sub-branches of the branch of philosophy called Axiology. The concept of ethics is largely based on the culture and religion of a society. Here are some essays on ethics to help you with the topic in your exam. You can select any ethics essay as per your need:

Long and Short Essay on Ethics in English

Ethics essay 1 (200 words).

Ethics help in answering the questions of human morality by providing a set definition for the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, vice and virtue and so on. When in doubt we always think about the moral and ethical values we have been taught since our early years and almost immediately get clarity of thoughts.

While the ethics have been set for the well being of the society and the overall good of the people living there, these can even be a cause of unhappiness for some. This is because people have gone overboard with these. For instance, in earlier times women in Indian culture were seen as home makers. They were not allowed to go out and work or question the decisions of the male members of the family. While these days women are being given freedom to go out and work and take various decisions on their own, many people still stick to the ethics and norms defined centuries back. They still believe that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and that it is ethically wrong for her to go out and work.

So while ethics and moral values must be embedded in people for the smooth functioning of the society and must be redefined from time to time for the proper growth and development of individuals as well as the society as a whole.

Ethics Essay 2 (300 words)

Introduction

The term ethics has been derived from the Ancient Greek word Ethos that means habit, custom or character. This is what ethics are in the real sense. A person’s habits and character speak volumes about the ethical values he/she possesses. In other words, a person’s ethical values define his character. We are all told as to what is good and what is bad based on the ethical norms set by the society.

The Philosophy of Ethics

The philosophy of ethics is deeper than it appears on the surface level. It is divided into three arenas. These are the normative ethics, applied ethics and meta-ethics. Here is a brief look at these three categories:

Normative Ethics : It deals with the content of moral judgement. It analyses the questions that spring up while considering how to act in different situations.

Applied Ethics : This category analyses the norms set about the way a person is supposed to or rather allowed to behave in a given situation. It deals with controversial topics such as animal rights and nuclear weapons.

Meta- Ethics : This field of ethics questions how we understand the concept of right and wrong and what all we know about it. It basically looks at the origin and fundamental meaning of the ethical principles.

While the ethical realists believe that individuals realize ethical truths that already exist, ethical non-realists, on the other hand, are of the opinion that individuals explore and invent ethical truths on their own. Both have their own arguments to back their opinions.

Most people blindly follow the ethics defined by the society. They stick to habits that are considered good as per the ethical norms and refrain from indulging in those that are considered to break these norms. However, there are some who question these values and go by what they think is right or wrong.

Ethics Essay 3 (400 words)

Ethics are defined as moral principles that describe the norms of good and bad and right and wrong. As per French Author, Albert Camus, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world”.

Types of Ethics

Ethics have broadly been classified into four different categories. Here is a brief look at these:

Duty Ethics : This category associates ethics with religious beliefs. Also known as deontological ethics, these ethics categorize behaviors and acts as being right or wrong. People are expected to act as per them to fulfill their duty. These ethics are taught to us from the very beginning.

Virtue Ethics : This category relates ethics with a person’s personal behaviour. It focuses on a person’s moral values, the way he thinks and the kind of character he bears. Virtue ethics are also embedded in us since our childhood. We are taught what is right and wrong even though there is no logic behind it in many cases.

Relativistic Ethics : As per this, everything is equal. Each individual has the right to analyze the situation and form his own version of right and wrong. The advocates of this theory strongly believe that what may be right for one person may not be correct for the other. Also what is correct in certain situation may not be appropriate in the other.

Consequential Ethics : During the age of Enlightenment, there was a quest for rationalism. This category of ethics is associated with that quest. As per this ethical theory, the outcome of an individual’s behaviour determines the wrongness or rightness of his behaviour.

Ethics Differ in Different Cultures

As per some, ethics are the values that must be taught since childhood and that one must strictly abide by them. A person who defies these is considered to be ethically wrong. Some people are quite rigid about following the ethical codes. They constantly judge others based on their behaviour. On the other hand, there are people who are flexible about the same and believe that these can be altered to some extent based on the situation.

Now, the basic code of conduct and ethics expected from individuals is almost the same across nations. However, there may be certain ethical behaviours that may be right as per certain cultures but not accepted in others. For instance, in the Western countries women have the freedom to wear any kind of dress they want but in many of the eastern countries wearing short dresses is considered ethically wrong.

There are various schools of thoughts that have their own versions of ethics. Many people go by the norms of right and wrong others make their own version.

Ethics Essay 4 (500 words)

Ethics define the way a person should behave in any given situation. They are embedded in us from our childhood and almost every decision we make in our life is largely influenced by our ethical values. A person is considered good or bad based on his/ her ethical conduct.

Ethics hold immense importance in both our personal and professional life. A person who holds high ethical values, truly believes in them and follows them would be much more sorted as compared to those who follow the set ethical norms but do not really believe in the same. Then, there is yet another category of people – those who do not believe in the ethical norms and thus do not follow them. These may be a cause of disruption of peace in the society.

Importance of Ethics in Our Personal Life

The minds of the people are conditioned as per the accepted moral and ethical values existent in the society they are brought up in. The importance of ethics cannot be undermined. A child needs to be taught what behaviour is accepted in the society and what is not from the very beginning in order for him to live in harmony with the society. This system has basically been put in place so that people know how to act right and maintain peace and harmony in the society.

Taking decisions becomes easier for people as the right and wrong has already been defined. Imagine if the right doings and wrong doings were not defined, everyone would act as per their will based on their own versions of right and wrong. This would make things chaotic and give rise to crime.

Importance of Ethics in Our Professional Life

Maintaining ethical conduct is extremely important at work place. Besides the basic ethics and values defined by the society, every organization determines its set of ethical values. Every individual working in that organization must follow them to maintain the code of conduct. Some examples of common ethical codes set by organizations can be to treat employees fairly, deal with honesty, never leak the company’s inside information, respect your co-workers and if something appears wrong with the company’s management or some employee it must be addressed politely and directly rather than creating unnecessary issue about the same.

Setting these workplace ethics helps in smooth functioning of the organization. Any employee seen violating the ethical code is issued warning letter or penalized in different ways based on the severity of the issue.

In case of absence of the set ethical codes in an organization, things are likely to become chaotic and unmanageable. It is thus essential for every organization to set these norms. Ethical codes in an organization do not only help in ensuring good work environment but also teach the employees as how to deal with the clients in different situations.

A company’s ethical code basically echoes its core values and responsibilities.

Setting an ethical code for the society as well as at work places and other institutions is essential. It helps the people recognize as to what is right and what is wrong and encourages them to behave the right way.

Ethics Essay 5 (600 words)

Ethics are defined as a system that determines what is right or wrong. This system has been built to ensure the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. A person possessing high ethical values is the one who conforms to the ethical norms set by the society without questioning them.

Ethics Vs Morals

Ethics and moral values are usually used interchangeably. However, there is a difference between the two. While ethics are the standards set by the culture one follows, the society one dwells in and the organization one works in to ensure that a person behaves righteously, moral values on the other hand are embedded in a person’s behaviour and define his character.

Ethics are based on external factors. For instance, women in the Middle-Eastern culture are required to cover themselves from head to toe. In certain middle-eastern countries they are not allowed to work or even go out without being accompanied by a man. If a woman tries to challenge this norm, she is considered to be ethically wrong. Ethical behaviour is also set based on a person’s profession. For instance, doctors, policemen and teachers are expected to behave in a certain manner to fulfil their professional duty. They cannot go against the ethical code set for them.

The moral values of a person are mainly influenced by his culture and the family atmosphere. These are the principles he creates for himself. These principles define his character and he takes his personal decisions based on these. While the ethical code one is expected to follow may vary based on the organization he works with and the society he lives in, the moral values of a person remain the same throughout. However, certain events in a person’s life may change his beliefs and he may imbibe different values based on the same.

How Are Ethics and Moral Values Related to Each Other?

As mentioned above, ethics are imposed on us by the society and moral values are our own understanding of what is right and what is wrong. These are closely related to each other. An individual whose moral values match the ethical standards set by the society is considered to have high moral values. For instance, a man who respects his parents and obeys everything they say, visits the temple daily, gets back home on time and spends time with his family is said to have good moral values.

On the other hand, an individual who may not be religiously inclined, may question what his parents say based on logic, hang out with friends and return late from the office may be considered to be one with low moral values as he does not conform to the ethical code set by the society. Even if this person is not harming anyone or is not doing anything wrong he would still be considered one with low morals. While this may not be so in every culture but in India people are judged based on such behaviour.

Conflict between Moral Values and Ethics

At times, people are caught between their moral values and the defined ethical code. While their moral values may stop them from doing something, the ethical code set by their profession might require them to do so. For instance, the corporate culture these days is such that you may be required to have a drink or two to build PR during the official parties. While it is alright as per the ethical code of the organization and may even be required at times to maintain relations with the clients, a person’s moral values may suggest him to do otherwise.

Ethical codes are set to ensure peace and harmony in the society. However, these must not be blindly passed on from generation to generation. This is because what may be right during one age or culture might not be appropriate when applied to another.

Related Information:

• Essay on Discipline
• Paragraph on Discipline
• Speech on Value of Discipline in Student Life
• Speech on Discipline
• Speech on Self-Discipline and its Importance
• Essay on Good Manners
• Essay on Moral Values
• Essay on Importance of Good Manners in Life
• Paragraph on Moral Values

Related content

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Select your Course

Please select class.

Tolerance is more than putting up with things – it’s a moral virtue

Honarary Research Fellow in Psychology , Australian Catholic University

Disclosure statement

Rivka T. Witenberg received funding from Large ARC SPIRT Grant; Department of Psychology Research Support Scheme, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University; Centre for Education for Human Values and Tolerance, Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv, Israel; The University of Melbourne Collaborative research Grant.

Australian Catholic University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

We hear a lot about tolerance these days.

Tolerance is a moral virtue best placed within the moral domain – but unfortunately it is often confounded with prejudice. Much of the psychological research about tolerance generally and about the development of children’s understanding of tolerance of others who are different from them has been examined through research about prejudice – and not through the moral domain. The assumption made is that absence of prejudice by default means a person is tolerant.

Prejudice and tolerance are actually theoretically different concepts – and not the opposite of each other. In fact, they coexist in most of us.

Tolerance is difficult to define, which may have led to limiting the study of tolerance in psychology in favour of studying prejudice. But, unlike prejudice, tolerance can be grounded in the moral domain which offers a positive approach to examining relationships between groups of people who are different from each other.

Based on its Latin origin, tolerance, or toleration as philosophers often refer to it, is most commonly viewed negatively as “putting up with” something we dislike or even hate. If a person is prepared to “put up with” something – along the lines of, I do not like the colour of your skin but I will still serve you not to lose your custom – that person is someone who does not discriminate but remains intolerant in thoughts and beliefs.

Besides, who wants to be tolerated or be “put up with”?

At the same time tolerance cannot be indiscriminate. Indiscriminate acceptance in its most extreme form could lead to recognition of questionable practice and human rights violations – for instance, child marriages and neo-Nazi propaganda.

Tolerance as a moral virtue

An alternative way for us to think of tolerance is to place it within the moral domain and recognise that it is what it is, a moral virtue.

Many recent philosophers have linked tolerance with respect, equality and liberty. Those such as Michael Dusche , John Rawls and Michael Walzer among others, argue that we should regard tolerance as a positive civic and moral duty between individuals, irrespective of colour, creed or culture.

In other words, it is a moral obligation or duty which involves respect for the individual as well as mutual respect and consideration between people. Tolerance between people makes it possible for conflicting claims of beliefs, values and ideas to coexistence as long as they fit within acceptable moral values.

So while different marriage practices fit in within acceptable moral values, sexual abuse of children is immoral and cannot be tolerated. I believe tolerance is an essential component in social unity and a remedy to intolerance and prejudice.

The idea that tolerance is a moral duty had been acknowledged by earlier civil libertarians, such as John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, John Stuart Mill and others. They argue that tolerant people value the individual, his or her independence and freedom of choice.

When tolerance is placed within the moral domain relating to fairness, justice and respect and avoiding causing harm to others, it can only be viewed as a positive moral virtue.

Psychological research supports the idea that tolerance is better placed within the moral domain. My own research with my students shows the best indicators and predictors of tolerance to human diversity are fairness and empathy.

Fairness and empathy are also very closely connected to moral development and reasoning. They are fundamental to any coherent moral philosophy.

Empathy and morality

Psychologists such as Johnathan Haidt believe empathy is the most important motivator for moral behaviour. Others such as Martin Hoffman argue empathy is a motivator of prosocial and altruistic or unselfish behaviour.

Empathic people are sensitive to the thoughts, feelings and experiences of others. They are able to place themselves in someone else’s shoes or understand how it would feel to be treated badly. Placing oneself in someone else’s shoes is the essence of tolerance.

My research shows that people of all ages including children have a strong sense of fairness and empathy towards others different from them in colour, creed or culture. They reject prejudice and intolerance between 70% and 80% of the time affirming tolerance based on fairness and empathy.

Moral values such as fairness, justice, empathy, tolerance and respect are shared, if not universal, values relevant to dealing with human diversity

Tolerance examined as separate concept could have unique implications for education and social policy. Education aimed at promoting a harmonious society could do well to focus more on the relationship between morality and tolerance. Grounding tolerance in theories of morality allows for an alternative educational approach to promote harmonious intergroup relationships.

Part of this education would involve developing a strong sense of fairness and justice and the ability to empathise with the plight of others who are different in racial characteristics, ethnicity or nationality.

This article is part of a series on public morality in 21st-century Australia.

• Morality series

Executive Assistant to the Dean

Economics Editor

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Strategy and Services)

Chief People & Culture Officer

Lecturer / senior lecturer in construction and project management.

Module 13: Ethics in Public Speaking

Ethical speaking.

In January, 2012, an Australian politician, Anthony Albanese, presented a speech to the National Press Club. Several people criticized this speech, saying that he stole lines from Michael Douglas’s character  (the U.S. President) in the movie The American President . Several specific lines from Albanese’s speech did seem to mirror Douglas’s monologue, with only the names changed. The Liberal Party federal director, Brian Loughnane, claimed that this shows Albanese is “unoriginal and devoid of ideas.” Others stated that he should be embarrassed and should apologize to the Parliament. [1]

What do you think about Albanese’s speech? Was this a simple mishap? A funny prank? Something more serious? What do you think this says about Albanese’s character? His reputation as a politician? Assessing your attitudes and values toward this situation is the same as considering how ethics play a role in public speaking.

Ethical public speaking is not a one-time event. It does not just occur when you stand to give a 5-minute presentation to your classmates or co-workers. Ethical public speaking is a process. This process begins when you begin brainstorming the topic of your speech. Every time you plan to speak to an audience—whether it is at a formal speaking event or an impromptu pitch at your workplace—you have ethical responsibilities to fulfill. The two most important aspects in ethical communication include your ability to remain honest while avoiding plagiarism and to set and meet responsible speech goals.

Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people. – Spencer Johnson

Be Honest and Avoid P lagiarism

Credible public speakers are open and honest with their audiences. Honesty includes telling your audience why you’re speaking (thesis statement) and what you’ll address throughout your speech (preview). For instance, one example of dishonest speech is when a vacation destination offers “complimentary tours and sessions” which are really opportunities for a sales person to pitch a timeshare to unsuspecting tourists. In addition to being clear about the speech goal, honest speakers are clear with audience members when providing supporting information.

One example of dishonest public communication occurs in the music industry where many cases of illegal melody lifting exist. For example, a famous Beach Boys song titled Surfin’ USA is actually a note-for-note rendition of a 1958 Chuck Berry song. Though it may be common, the practice of not properly crediting an author for his or her work is unethical. Other examples of deceitful communication include political speeches that intentionally mislead the public. For instance, a former White House press aide, Scott McClellan, claims that President Bush misled the American people about reasons for the Iraqi war. McClellan claims that the President had manipulated sources in order to gain support for the war. Such claims can be damaging to one’s reputation. Thus, responsible public speakers must actively avoid plagiarism and remain committed to honesty and integrity at all costs.

Mimi & Eunice, “Thief” by Nina Paley. CC-BY-SA .

Identify Your Sources

The first step of ethical speech preparation is to take notes as you research your speech topic. Careful notes will help you remember where you learned your information. Recalling your sources is important because it enables speaker honesty. Passing off another’s work as your own or neglecting to cite the source for your information is considered plagiarism . This unethical act can result in several consequences, ranging from a loss in credibility to academic expulsion or job loss. Even with these potential consequences, plagiarism is unfortunately common. In a national survey, 87 percent of students claimed that their peers plagiarized from the Internet at least some of the time. [2] This statistic does not take into account whether or not the plagiarism was intentional, occurring when the writer or speaker knowingly presented information as his or her own; or unintentional, occurring when careless citing leads to information being uncredited or miscredited. However, it is important to note that being unaware of how to credit sources should not be an excuse for unintentional plagiarism. In other words, speakers are held accountable for intentional and unintentional plagiarism. The remainder of this section discusses how to ensure proper credit is given when preparing and presenting a speech.

A liar should have a good memory. – Quintilian

There are three distinct types of plagiarism—global, patchwork, and incremental plagiarism. [3]   Global plagiarism , the most obvious form of plagiarism, transpires when a speaker presents a speech that is not his or her own work. For example, if a student finds a speech on the Internet or borrows a former speech from a roommate and recites that speech verbatim, global plagiarism has occurred. Global plagiarism is the most obvious type of theft. However, other forms of plagiarism are less obvious but still represent dishonest public speaking.

If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything. – Mark Twain

“Rainbow Dahlia quilt” by Holice E. Turnbow. CC-BY-SA .

Sometimes a student neglects to cite a source simply because she or he forgot where the idea was first learned. Shi explains that many students struggle with plagiarism because they’ve reviewed multiple texts and changed wording so that ideas eventually feel like their own. Students engage in “‘patchwriting’ by copying from a source text and then deleting or changing a few words and altering the sentence structures.” [4]   Patchwork plagiarism is plagiarism that occurs when one “patches” together bits and pieces from one or more sources and represents the end result as his or her own. Michael O’Neill also coined the term “paraplaging” [5] to explain how an author simply uses partial text of sources with partial original writing. An example of patchwork plagiarism is if you create a speech by pasting together parts of another speech or author’s work. Read the following hypothetical scenario to get a better understanding of subtle plagiarism.

Three months ago, Carley was talking to her coworkers about expanding their company’s client base. Carley reported some of the ideas she’d been pondering with Stephen and Juan. The three employees shared ideas and provided constructive criticism in order to perfect each notion, and then mentioned they’d revisit the conversation over lunch sometime soon. A week later, Carley shared one of her ideas during the company’s Monday morning staff meeting. Carley came up with the idea, but Stephen and Juan helped her think through some of the logistics of bringing in more clients. Her peers’ input was key to making Carley’s client-building idea work. When Carley pitched her idea at the company staff meeting, she didn’t mention Stephen or Juan. She shared her idea with senior management and then waited for feedback.

Did Carley behave unethically? Some would say: “No!” since she shared her own idea. Did Carley speak honestly? Perhaps not because she didn’t account for how her idea took shape— with the help of Stephen and Juan. This scenario is an example of how complicated honesty becomes when speaking to an audience.

The third type of plagiarism is incremental plagiarism, or when most of the speech is the speaker’s original work, but quotes or other information have been used without being cited. Incremental plagiarism can occur if, for example, you provide a statistic to support your claim, but do not provide the source for that statistic. Another example would be if a student included a direct quote from former president Ronald Reagan without letting the audience know that those were Reagan’s exact words. Understanding the different types of plagiarism is the first step in ensuring that you prepare an honest speech.

Decide When to Cite

When speaking publicly you must orally cite all information that isn’t general knowledge. For example, if your speech claims that the sun is a star, you do not have to cite that information since it’s general knowledge. If your speech claims that the sun’s temperature is 15.6 million Kelvin, [7] then you should cite that source aloud. Ethical speakers are not required to cite commonly known information (e.g., skin is the largest human organ; Barack Obama was elected President of the U.S. in 2008). However, any information that isn’t general knowledge must be orally cited during a speech. The same is true in the text of a speech outline: cite all non-general information.

The OWL, an online writing lab at Purdue University, provides an excellent guide for when you need to cite information (see Table 3.1). Understanding when to include source material is the first step in being able to ethically cite sources. The next step in this process is to determine how to appropriately cite sources orally and in written materials.

Cite Sources Properly

You’ve learned the importance of citing sources. Now that you know why written and oral citations are important to the ethical process of public speaking, let’s focus on how to cite supporting speech material. Studies show that oftentimes students do not cite a source because they’re unsure of how or when to cite a reference. Shi’s study describes some typical responses for why students did not cite sources, such as “I couldn’t remember where I learned the information,” or “I had already cited that author and didn’t want the audience to think all of my information was from some outside source.” Though these rationales are understandable, they are not ethical.

Understand Paraphrasing and D irect Quotations

Next, it is important to understand the process for paraphrasing and directly quoting sources in order to support your speech claims. First, what is the difference between paraphrasing and directly quoting a source? If you research and learn information from a source—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance— and then share that information in your own words; you don’t use quotation marks; but you do credit the CDC as your source. This is known as a paraphrase —a sentence or string of sentences that shares learned information in your own words. A direct quote is any sentence or string of sentences that conveys an author’s idea word-for-word. According to the APA (American Psychological Association), when writing speech content, you must include quotation marks around an author’s work when you use his or her keywords, phrases, or sentences. This would be relevant for a speech outline, a handout, or a visual aid. It is also important to specify a direct quote when you are orally citing during your speech. This indicates to the audience that you are using the original author’s exact words. While it is acceptable to use the phrases “begin quote” and “end quote” to indicate this to your audience, such phrases can be distracting to the audience. One way to clearly and concisely indicate a direct quote is to take a purposeful pause right before and after the quoted material. This differentiates between your words and the source material’s words. See Table 3.2 for examples of how to paraphrase and directly quote an author, both in written speech materials and for an oral citation.

Develop Accurate Citations

Ethical speakers share source information with the audience. On written materials, such as handouts or speech outlines, citations are handled much like they would be in any essay. In addition to written citations, oral citations provide source information to audience members who may not see your written speech. In all citations, enough information should be given so that the audience can easily find the source.

You may choose to briefly describe the author before citing him or her to lend credibility to your supporting information. Writing style guidebooks, such as APA or MLA (Modern Language Association), teach that a source’s credentials are not necessary in the text of your paper. We can interpret that the same is true for providing oral citations in a speech–the author’s occupation, the source website, or the journal name are not required but may be helpful verbal cues to explain the legitimacy of your chosen source. You should provide enough information so that an audience member can locate the source. For instance, it might be useful to describe the doctor as a leading pediatrician–after which you would state the doctor’s last name, year of publication, and the quote or paraphrase. To orally paraphrase a Langer quote (see example poster in Figure 3.1), you might say to your audience:

I really agree with Langer (1989), who wrote in her book Mindfulness, that our world is constructed from the categories we build in our mind. I find that I interpret the world based on my initial understanding of things and have to mindfully force myself to question the categories and biases I’ve formally created in my head. 

Note, the Langer paraphrase provides the author’s last name, year of publication, and the title of the book should an audience member want to find the orally cited source.

Ethical speakers provide written, oral, and visual citations. Visual aids, discussed in Chapter 13, include posters, objects, models, PowerPoints, and handouts. Visual aids are used to enhance your speech message. Visual aids, just like speech content, must be displayed ethically for the audience. In other words, if you use a poster to display a famous quote, then you should cite the author on your poster (see Figure 3.1). Similarly, you should cite sources on your PowerPoint throughout the presentation . It is not sufficient to include a “Sources” or “References” slide at the end of your PowerPoint because that does not accurately link each author to his or her work. Instead, ethical presenters provide an author reference on the slide in which the cited content is shown (see Figure 3.2).

Speakers should also carefully select and correctly cite images displayed in their visual aid. Images should be relevant to the keywords used on your PowerPoint slide. In other words, captions are not necessary because the image can stand alone; images you display should obviously correlate with your speech content (a caption is typically used because the picture needs explanation). In other words, the presence of a caption typically means your image does not directly correspond with the verbal speech material. Images should support, not distract, from the verbal or visual message. Hence, there is no need for blinking, rotating, or otherwise distracting visual aids. [11] Images should be simple and relevant. All pictures should be cited, unless the presenter uses a personal, clipart, or purchased stock image. To cite an image, simply include the credit (or web link) to that picture; note, however, the font size of the link should be reduced so that it is visible to the audience without distracting from the content in your visual aid. Seeing an image link should not be distracting to audience members.

“Question copyright” by Ttog~commonswiki. CC-BY-SA .

It’s also important to understand how copyright law might affect what and how you include information in your speech and on your visual aid. The fair use provision allows for copyrighted information to be shared if it is used for educational benefits, news reporting, research, and in other situations. Nolo explains, “In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.” [12] In order to determine if the use of content falls under the fair use provision, there are four factors to consider:

• How will this be used?
• What is to be used?
• How much will be used?
• What effect does this have? [13]

You can find more about these four factors at the U.S. Copyright website .

Ethical citing includes crediting authors in the text of your written speech materials, acknowledging authors aloud during your speech, and citing images and sources on your visual aid. However, ethics in public speaking encompass more than crediting source material. It’s also necessary to strive for responsible speech goals.

Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar. – David Herbert Lawrence

Set Responsible Speech Goals

Jensen coined the term “rightsabilities” to explain how a communicator must balance tensions between speaker rights and responsibility to others. Ensuring that you have responsible speech goals is one way to achieve ethical communication in public speaking. There are several speech goals that support this mission. This section will focus on five goals: 1) promote diversity, 2) use inclusive language, 3) avoid hate speech, 4) raise social awareness, and 5) employ respectful free speech.

“U.S. Air Force” by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown. Public domain.

Promote Diversity

One important responsibility speakers have is fostering  diversity, or an appreciation for differences among individuals and groups. Diversity in public speaking is important when considering both your audience and your speech content. Promoting diversity allows audience members who may be different from the speaker to feel included and can present a perspective to which audience members had not previously been exposed. Speakers may choose a speech topic that introduces a multicultural issue to the audience or can promote diversity by choosing language and visual aids that relate to and support listeners of different backgrounds. Because of the diversity present in our lives, it is necessary to consider how speakers can promote diversity.

One simple way of promoting diversity is to use both sexes in your hypothetical examples and to include co-cultural groups when creating a hypothetical situation. For example, you can use names that represent both sexes and that also stem from different cultural backgrounds. In the story about Carley and her co-workers, her co-workers were deliberately given male names so that both sexes were represented. Ethical speakers also encourage diversity in races, socioeconomic status, and other demographics. These choices promote diversity. In addition, ethical speakers can strive to break stereotypes. For instance, if you’re telling a hypothetical story about a top surgeon in the nation, why not make the specialized surgeon a female from a rural area? Or make the hypothetical secretary a man named Frank? You could also include a picture in your visual aid of the female surgeon or the male secretary at work. Ethical speakers should not assume that a nurse is female or that a firefighter is male. Sexist language can alienate your audience from your discussion. [14]

Another way that sexist language occurs in speeches is when certain statements or ideas are directed at a particular sex. For example, the “Selecting a Florist” speech described at the beginning of this chapter may be considered sexist by many audience members. Another example is the following statement, which implies only males might be interested in learning how to fix a car: “I think that fixing a car is one of the most important things you can learn how to do. Am I right, guys?” Promoting diversity is related to using inclusive language, discussed in the following sections.

Excellence is the best deterrent to racism or sexism. – Oprah Winfrey

Use Inclusive Language

Avoiding sexist language is one way to use inclusive language. Another important way for speakers to develop responsible language is to use inclusionary pronouns and phrases. For example, novice speakers might tell their audience: “One way for you to get involved in the city’s Clean Community Program is to pick up trash on your street once a month.” Instead, an effective public speaker could exclaim: “One way for all of us to get involved in our local communities is by picking up trash on a regular basis.” This latter statement is an example of “we”  language —pronouns and phrases that unite the speaker to the audience. “We” language (instead of “I” or “You” language) is a simple way to build a connection between the speaker, speech content, and audience. This is especially important during a persuasive speech as “we” language establishes trust, rapport, and goodwill between the speaker and the audience. Take, for example, the following listener relevance statements in a persuasive speech about volunteering:

“You” language: You may say that you’re too busy to volunteer, but I don’t agree. I’m here to tell you that you should be volunteering in your community.

“We” language: As college students, we all get busy in our daily lives and sometimes helpful acts such as volunteering aren’t priorities in our schedules. Let’s explore how we can be more active volunteers in our community.

In this exchange, the “you” language sets the speaker apart from the audience and could make listeners defensive about their time and lack of volunteering. On the other hand, the “we” language connects the speaker to the audience and lets the audience know that the speaker understands and has some ideas for how to fix the problem. This promotes a feeling of inclusiveness, one of the responsible speech goals.

Avoid Hate Speech

Another key aspect of ethical speaking is to develop an awareness of spoken words and the power of words. The NCA Credo of Ethical Communication highlights the importance of this awareness: “We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.” [15] Words can be powerful—both in helping you achieve your speech goal and in affecting your audience in significant ways. It is essential that public speakers refrain from hate or sexist language. Hate speech, according to Verderber, Sellnow, and Verderber, “is the use of words and phrases not only to demean another person or group but also to express hatred and prejudice.” [16]  Hate language isolates a particular person or group in a derogatory manner. Michael Richards, famous for the role of Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld , came under fire for his hate speech during a comedy routine in 2006. Richards used several racial epithets and directed his hate language towards African-Americans and Mexicans. [17] Richards apologized for his outbursts, but the damage to his reputation and career was irrevocable. Likewise, using hate speech in any public speaking situation can alienate your audience and take away your credibility, leading to more serious implications for your grade, your job, or other serious outcomes. It is your responsibility as the speaker to be aware of sensitive material and be able to navigate language choices to avoid offending your audience.

No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world. – Robin Williams

Raise Social Awareness

Speakers should consider it their ethical responsibility to educate listeners by introducing ideas of racial, gender, or cultural diversity, but also by raising social awareness , or the recognition of important issues that affect societies. Raising social awareness is a task for ethical speakers because educating peers on important causes empowers others to make a positive change in the world. Many times when you present a speech, you have the opportunity to raise awareness about growing social issues. For example, if you’re asked to present an informative speech to your classmates, you could tell them about your school’s athletic tradition or you could discuss Peace One Day —a campaign that promotes a single day of worldwide cease-fire, allowing crucial food and medicine supplies to be shipped into warzone areas. [18] If your assignment is to present a persuasive speech, you could look at the assignment as an opportunity to convince your classmates to (a) stop texting while they drive, (b) participate in a program that supports US troops by writing personal letters to deployed soldiers or (c) buy a pair of TOMS (tomsshoes.com) and find other ways to provide basic needs to impoverished families around the world. Of course, those are just a few ideas for how an informative or persuasive speech can be used to raise awareness about current social issues. It is your responsibility, as a person and speaker, to share information that provides knowledge or activates your audience toward the common good. [19]

“Raising John T. Williams Memorial Totem Pole” by Joe Mabel. CC-BY-SA .

One way to be successful in attaining your speech goal while also remaining ethical is to consider your audience’s moral base. Moon identifies a principle that allows the speaker to justify his or her perspective by finding common moral ground with the audience. [20] This illustrates to the audience that you have goodwill but allows you to still use your moral base as a guide for responsible speech use. For example, even though you are a vegetarian and believe that killing animals for food is murder, you know that the majority of your audience does not feel the same way. Rather than focusing on this argument, you decide to use Moon’s principle and focus on animal cruelty. By highlighting the inhumane ways that animals are raised for food, you appeal to the audience’s moral frame that abusing animals is wrong—something that you and your audience can both agree upon.

If we lose love and self-respect for each other, this is how we finally die. – Maya Angelou

Employ Respectful Free Speech

We live in a nation that values freedom of speech. Of course, due to the First Amendment, you have the right and ability to voice your opinions and values to an audience. However, that freedom of speech must be balanced with your responsibility as a speaker to respect your audience. Offending or degrading the values of your audience members will not inform or persuade them. For example, let’s say you want to give a persuasive speech on why abortion is morally wrong. It’s your right to voice that opinion. Nevertheless, it’s important that you build your case without offending your audience members— since you don’t know everyone’s history or stance on the subject. Showing disturbing pictures on your visual aid may not “make your point” in the way you intended. Instead, these pictures may send audience members into an emotional tailspin (making it difficult for them to hear your persuasive points because of their own psychological noise). Freedom of speech is a beautiful American value, but ethical speakers must learn to balance their speech freedom with their obligation to respect each audience member.

Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized. – Benjamin Haydon

• ABC News. (2012, January 25). Albanese accused of plagiarising Hollywood speech. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-25/albanese-accused-ofplagiarising-speech/3793486 ↵
• Cruikshank, B. (2004). Plagiarism: It’s Alive! Texas Library Journal , 80 (4), 132–136. ↵
• Lucas, S. E. (2001). The art of public speaking (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ↵
• Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–24. ↵
• O’Neill, M. T. (1980). Plagiarism: Writing Responsibly. Business Communication Quarterly , 43 , 34–36. ↵
• Stolley, K., & Brizee, A. (2011, August 24). Avoiding plagiarism. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/ ↵
• Nine Planets. (2011). The Sun. Retrieved from http://nineplanets.org/sol.html ↵
• Rohr, R. (2011). Falling upward: A spirituality for the two halves of life. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. ↵
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Are you at high risk for serious illness from flu? Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/Features/FluHighRisk/ ↵
• Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ↵
• Danoff-Burg, J. (2002). PowerPoint writing guide. Retrieved from http://eices.columbia.edu/education-training/see-u/dr/ppt_writing.html ↵
• Nolo. (2010). What is fair use? Copyright and fair use, Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved from http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html ↵
• Harper, G. K. (2007). Copyright Crash Course. Retrieved from http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html ↵
• Driscoll, D. L., & Brizee, A. (2010, July 13). Stereotypes and biased language. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/608/05 ↵
• National Communication Association. (1999). NCA credo for ethical communication. Retrieved from http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/About_NCA/Leadership_and_Governance/Public_Policy_Platform/PDF-PolicyPlatformNCA_Credo_for_Ethical_Communication.pdf ↵
• Verderber, R. F., Sellnow, D. D., & Verderber, K. S. (2012). The challenge of effective speaking (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. ↵
• Farhi, P. (2006, November 21). ‘Seinfeld’ comic Richards apologizes for racial rant. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/ ↵
• Peace One Day. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.peaceoneday.org/en/about/Introduction ↵
• Mill, J.S. (1987). Utilitarianism. In A. Ryan (Ed.), Utilitarianism and other essays (pp. 272 – 338). New York: Penguin Classics. ↵
• Moon, J. D. (1993). Theory, citizenship, and democracy. In G. E. Marcus & R. L. Hanson, Reconsidering the democratic public (pp. 211 – 222). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ↵
• Image of boy with book. Authored by : cybrarian77. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/cybrarian77/6284177707/in/photostream/ . License : CC BY-NC: Attribution-NonCommercial
• Chapter 3 Ethical Speaking. Authored by : Alyssa Millner and Rachel Price. Provided by : King College and University of Kentucky. Located at : http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html . Project : Public Speaking Project. License : CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
• ME 109 Thief. Authored by : Nina Paley. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ME_109_Thief.png . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• RainbowDhalia quilt. Authored by : Holice E. Turnbow. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RainbowDhalia_quilt.jpg . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Question copyright. Authored by : Stephan Baum and ttog. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Question_copyright.svg . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Raising John T. Williams Memorial Totem Pole 300. Authored by : Joe Mabel. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raising_John_T._Williams_Memorial_Totem_Pole_300.jpg . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• F-15 pilots Elmendorf. Authored by : Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown. Provided by : US Air Force. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-15_pilots_Elmendorf.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Privacy Policy

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.2 Ethics in Public Speaking

Learning objectives.

• Understand how to apply the National Communication Association (NCA) Credo for Ethical Communication within the context of public speaking.
• Understand how you can apply ethics to your public speaking preparation process.

The study of ethics in human communication is hardly a recent endeavor. One of the earliest discussions of ethics in communication (and particularly in public speaking) was conducted by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus . In the centuries since Plato’s time, an entire subfield within the discipline of human communication has developed to explain and understand communication ethics.

Communication Code of Ethics

In 1999, the National Communication Association officially adopted the Credo for Ethical Communication (see the following sidebar). Ultimately, the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is a set of beliefs communication scholars have about the ethics of human communication.

National Communication Association Credo for Ethical Communication

Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following principles of ethical communication:

• We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.
• We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society.
• We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.
• We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society.
• We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators.
• We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.
• We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
• We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality.
• We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences of our own communication and expect the same of others.

Source: http://www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=134&terms=Credo

Applying the NCA Credo to Public Speaking

The NCA Credo for Ethical Communication is designed to inspire discussions of ethics related to all aspects of human communication. For our purposes, we want to think about each of these principles in terms of how they affect public speaking.

We Advocate Truthfulness, Accuracy, Honesty, and Reason as Essential to the Integrity of Communication

Carmella Fernando – Promise? – CC BY 2.0.

As public speakers, one of the first ethical areas we should be concerned with is information honesty. While there are cases where speakers have blatantly lied to an audience, it is more common for speakers to prove a point by exaggerating, omitting facts that weigh against their message, or distorting information. We believe that speakers build a relationship with their audiences, and that lying, exaggerating, or distorting information violates this relationship. Ultimately, a speaker will be more persuasive by using reason and logical arguments supported by facts rather than relying on emotional appeals designed to manipulate the audience.

It is also important to be honest about where all your information comes from in a speech. As speakers, examine your information sources and determine whether they are biased or have hidden agendas. For example, you are not likely to get accurate information about nonwhite individuals from a neo-Nazi website. While you may not know all your sources of information firsthand, you should attempt to find objective sources that do not have an overt or covert agenda that skews the argument you are making. We will discuss more about ethical sources of information in Chapter 7 “Researching Your Speech” later in this book.

The second part of information honesty is to fully disclose where we obtain the information in our speeches. As ethical speakers, it is important to always cite your sources of information within the body of a speech. Whether you conducted an interview or read a newspaper article, you must tell your listeners where the information came from. We mentioned earlier in this chapter that using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit is called plagiarism . The word “plagiarism” stems from the Latin word plagiaries , or kidnapper. The American Psychological Association states in its publication manual that ethical speakers do not claim “words and ideas of another as their own; they give credit where credit is due” (American Psychological Association, 2001).

In the previous sentence, we placed quotation marks around the sentence to indicate that the words came from the American Psychological Association and not from us. When speaking informally, people sometimes use “air quotes” to signal direct quotations—but this is not a recommended technique in public speaking. Instead, speakers need to verbally tell an audience when they are using someone else’s information. The consequences for failing to cite sources during public speeches can be substantial. When Senator Joseph Biden was running for president of the United States in 1988, reporters found that he had plagiarized portions of his stump speech from British politician Neil Kinnock. Biden was forced to drop out of the race as a result. More recently, the student newspaper at Malone University in Ohio alleged that the university president, Gary W. Streit, had plagiarized material in a public speech. Streit retired abruptly as a result.

Even if you are not running for president of the United States or serving as a college president, citing sources is important to you as a student. Many universities have policies that include dismissal from the institution for student plagiarism of academic work, including public speeches. Failing to cite your sources might result, at best, in lower credibility with your audience and, at worst, in a failing grade on your assignment or expulsion from your school. While we will talk in more detail about plagiarism later in this book, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of giving credit to the speakers and authors whose ideas we pass on within our own speeches and writing.

Speakers tend to fall into one of three major traps with plagiarism. The first trap is failing to tell the audience the source of a direct quotation. In the previous paragraph, we used a direct quotation from the American Psychological Association; if we had not used the quotation marks and clearly listed where the cited material came from, you, as a reader, wouldn’t have known the source of that information. To avoid plagiarism, you always need to tell your audience when you are directly quoting information within a speech.

The second plagiarism trap public speakers fall into is paraphrasing what someone else said or wrote without giving credit to the speaker or author. For example, you may have read a book and learned that there are three types of schoolyard bullying. In the middle of your speech you talk about those three types of schoolyard bullying. If you do not tell your audience where you found that information, you are plagiarizing. Typically, the only information you do not need to cite is information that is general knowledge. General knowledge is information that is publicly available and widely known by a large segment of society. For example, you would not need to provide a citation within a speech for the name of Delaware’s capital. Although many people do not know the capital of Delaware without looking it up, this information is publicly available and easily accessible, so assigning credit to one specific source is not useful or necessary.

The third plagiarism trap that speakers fall into is re-citing someone else’s sources within a speech. To explain this problem, let’s look at a brief segment from a research paper written by Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam:

The main character on the hit Fox television show House , Dr. Gregory House, has one basic mantra, “It’s a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what” (Shore & Barclay, 2005). This notion that “everybody lies” is so persistent in the series that t-shirts have been printed with the slogan. Surprisingly, research has shown that most people do lie during interpersonal interactions to some degree. In a study conducted by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead (1975), the researchers had 130 participants record their own conversations with others. After recording these conversations, the participants then examined the truthfulness of the statements within the interactions. Only 38.5% of the statements made during these interactions were labeled as “completely honest.”

In this example, we see that the authors of this paragraph cited information from two external sources: Shore and Barclay and Tummer, Edgley, and Olmstead. These two groups of authors are given credit for their ideas. The authors make it clear that they did not produce the television show House or conduct the study that found that only 38.5 percent of statements were completely honest. Instead, these authors cited information found in two other locations. This type of citation is appropriate.

However, if a speaker read the paragraph and said the following during a speech, it would be plagiarism: “According to Wrench DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam, in a study of 130 participants, only 38.5 percent of the responses were completely honest.” In this case, the speaker is attributing the information cited to the authors of the paragraph, which is not accurate. If you want to cite the information within your speech, you need to read the original article by Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead and cite that information yourself.

There are two main reasons we do this. First, Wrench, DiMartino, Ramirez, Oviedio, and Tesfamariam may have mistyped the information. Suppose the study by Turner, Edgley, and Olstead really actually found that 58.5 percent of the responses were completely honest. If you cited the revised number (38.5 percent) from the paragraph, you would be further spreading incorrect information.

The second reason we do not re-cite someone else’s sources within our speeches is because it’s intellectually dishonest. You owe your listeners an honest description of where the facts you are relating came from, not just the name of an author who cited those facts. It is more work to trace the original source of a fact or statistic, but by doing that extra work you can avoid this plagiarism trap.

We Endorse Freedom of Expression, Diversity of Perspective, and Tolerance of Dissent to Achieve the Informed and Responsible Decision Making Fundamental to a Civil Society

This ethical principle affirms that a civil society depends on freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent and that informed and responsible decisions can only be made if all members of society are free to express their thoughts and opinions. Further, it holds that diverse viewpoints, including those that disagree with accepted authority, are important for the functioning of a democratic society.

If everyone only listened to one source of information, then we would be easily manipulated and controlled. For this reason, we believe that individuals should be willing to listen to a range of speakers on a given subject. As listeners or consumers of communication, we should realize that this diversity of perspectives enables us to be more fully informed on a subject. Imagine voting in an election after listening only to the campaign speeches of one candidate. The perspective of that candidate would be so narrow that you would have no way to accurately understand and assess the issues at hand or the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing candidates. Unfortunately, some voters do limit themselves to listening only to their candidate of choice and, as a result, base their voting decisions on incomplete—and, not infrequently, inaccurate—information.

Listening to diverse perspectives includes being willing to hear dissenting voices. Dissent is by nature uncomfortable, as it entails expressing opposition to authority, often in very unflattering terms. Legal scholar Steven H. Shiffrin has argued in favor of some symbolic speech (e.g., flag burning) because we as a society value the ability of anyone to express their dissent against the will and ideas of the majority (Shiffrin, 1999). Ethical communicators will be receptive to dissent, no matter how strongly they may disagree with the speaker’s message because they realize that a society that forbids dissent cannot function democratically.

Ultimately, honoring free speech and seeking out a variety of perspectives is very important for all listeners. We will discuss this idea further in the chapter on listening.

We Strive to Understand and Respect Other Communicators before Evaluating and Responding to Their Messages

This is another ethical characteristic that is specifically directed at receivers of a message. As listeners, we often let our perceptions of a speaker’s nonverbal behavior—his or her appearance, posture, mannerisms, eye contact, and so on—determine our opinions about a message before the speaker has said a word. We may also find ourselves judging a speaker based on information we have heard about him or her from other people. Perhaps you have heard from other students that a particular teacher is a really boring lecturer or is really entertaining in class. Even though you do not have personal knowledge, you may prejudge the teacher and his or her message based on information you have been given from others. The NCA credo reminds us that to be ethical listeners, we need to avoid such judgments and instead make an effort to listen respectfully; only when we have understood a speaker’s viewpoint are we ready to begin forming our opinions of the message.

Listeners should try to objectively analyze the content and arguments within a speech before deciding how to respond. Especially when we disagree with a speaker, we might find it difficult to listen to the content of the speech and, instead, work on creating a rebuttal the entire time the speaker is talking. When this happens, we do not strive to understand the speaker and do not respect the speaker.

Of course, this does not just affect the listener in the public speaking situation. As speakers, we are often called upon to evaluate and refute potential arguments against our positions. While we always want our speeches to be as persuasive as possible, we do ourselves and our audiences a disservice when we downplay, distort, or refuse to mention important arguments from the opposing side. Fairly researching and evaluating counterarguments is an important ethical obligation for the public speaker.

We Promote Access to Communication Resources and Opportunities as Necessary to Fulfill Human Potential and Contribute to the Well-Being of Families, Communities, and Society

Human communication is a skill that can and should be taught. We strongly believe that you can become a better, more ethical speaker. One of the reasons the authors of this book teach courses in public speaking and wrote this college textbook on public speaking is that we, as communication professionals, have an ethical obligation to provide others, including students like you, with resources and opportunities to become better speakers.

We Promote Communication Climates of Caring and Mutual Understanding That Respect the Unique Needs and Characteristics of Individual Communicators

Speakers need to take a two-pronged approach when addressing any audience: caring about the audience and understanding the audience. When you as a speaker truly care about your audience’s needs and desires, you avoid setting up a manipulative climate. This is not to say that your audience will always perceive their own needs and desires in the same way you do, but if you make an honest effort to speak to your audience in a way that has their best interests at heart, you are more likely to create persuasive arguments that are not just manipulative appeals.

Second, it is important for a speaker to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding. To do this, you should first learn as much as possible about your audience, a process called audience analysis. We will discuss this topic in more detail in the audience analysis chapter.

To create a climate of caring and mutual respect, it is important for us as speakers to be open with our audiences so that our intentions and perceptions are clear. Nothing alienates an audience faster than a speaker with a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated purpose of the speech. One of our coauthors once listened to a speaker give a two-hour talk, allegedly about workplace wellness, which actually turned out to be an infomercial for the speaker’s weight-loss program. In this case, the speaker clearly had a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda, which made the audience feel disrespected.

We Condemn Communication That Degrades Individuals and Humanity through Distortion, Intimidation, Coercion, and Violence and through the Expression of Intolerance and Hatred

This ethical principle is very important for all speakers. Hopefully, intimidation, coercion, and violence will not be part of your public speaking experiences, but some public speakers have been known to call for violence and incite mobs of people to commit attrocities. Thus distortion and expressions of intolerance and hatred are of special concern when it comes to public speaking.

Distortion occurs when someone purposefully twists information in a way that detracts from its original meaning. Unfortunately, some speakers take information and use it in a manner that is not in the spirit of the original information. One place we see distortion frequently is in the political context, where politicians cite a statistic or the results of a study and either completely alter the information or use it in a deceptive manner. FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center ( http://www.factcheck.org ), and the St. Petersburg Times’s Politifact ( http://www.politifact.com ) are nonpartisan organizations devoted to analyzing political messages and demonstrating how information has been distorted.

Expressions of intolerance and hatred that are to be avoided include using ageist , heterosexist , racist , sexist , and any other form of speech that demeans or belittles a group of people. Hate speech from all sides of the political spectrum in our society is detrimental to ethical communication. As such, we as speakers should be acutely aware of how an audience may perceive words that could be considered bigoted. For example, suppose a school board official involved in budget negotiations used the word “shekels” to refer to money, which he believes the teachers’ union should be willing to give up (Associated Press, 2011). The remark would be likely to prompt accusations of anti-Semitism and to distract listeners from any constructive suggestions the official might have for resolving budget issues. Although the official might insist that he meant no offense, he damaged the ethical climate of the budget debate by using a word associated with bigotry.

At the same time, it is important for listeners to pay attention to expressions of intolerance or hatred. Extremist speakers sometimes attempt to disguise their true agendas by avoiding bigoted “buzzwords” and using mild-sounding terms instead. For example, a speaker advocating the overthrow of a government might use the term “regime change” instead of “revolution”; similarly, proponents of genocide in various parts of the world have used the term “ethnic cleansing” instead of “extermination.” By listening critically to the gist of a speaker’s message as well as the specific language he or she uses, we can see how that speaker views the world.

We Are Committed to the Courageous Expression of Personal Convictions in Pursuit of Fairness and Justice

We believe that finding and bringing to light situations of inequality and injustice within our society is important. Public speaking has been used throughout history to point out inequality and injustice, from Patrick Henry arguing against the way the English government treated the American colonists and Sojourner Truth describing the evils of slavery to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and Army Lt. Dan Choi’s speeches arguing that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” is unjust. Many social justice movements have started because young public speakers have decided to stand up for what they believe is fair and just.

We Advocate Sharing Information, Opinions, and Feelings When Facing Significant Choices While Also Respecting Privacy and Confidentiality

This ethical principle involves balancing personal disclosure with discretion. It is perfectly normal for speakers to want to share their own personal opinions and feelings about a topic; however, it is also important to highlight information within a speech that represents your own thoughts and feelings. Your listeners have a right to know the difference between facts and personal opinions.

Similarly, we have an obligation to respect others’ privacy and confidentiality when speaking. If information is obtained from printed or publicly distributed material, it’s perfectly appropriate to use that information without getting permission, as long as you cite it. However, when you have a great anecdote one of your friends told you in confidence, or access to information that is not available to the general public, it is best to seek permission before using the information in a speech.

This ethical obligation even has legal implications in many government and corporate contexts. For example, individuals who work for the Central Intelligence Agency are legally precluded from discussing their work in public without prior review by the agency. And companies such as Google also have policies requiring employees to seek permission before engaging in public speaking in which sensitive information might be leaked.

We Accept Responsibility for the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Our Own Communication and Expect the Same of Others

The last statement of NCA’s ethical credo may be the most important one. We live in a society where a speaker’s message can literally be heard around the world in a matter of minutes, thanks to our global communication networks. Extreme remarks made by politicians, media commentators, and celebrities, as well as ordinary people, can unexpectedly “go viral” with regrettable consequences. It is not unusual to see situations where a speaker talks hatefully about a specific group, but when one of the speaker’s listeners violently attacks a member of the group, the speaker insists that he or she had no way of knowing that this could possibly have happened. Washing one’s hands of responsibility is unacceptable: all speakers should accept responsibility for the short-term and long-term consequences of their speeches. Although it is certainly not always the speaker’s fault if someone commits an act of violence, the speaker should take responsibility for her or his role in the situation. This process involves being truly reflective and willing to examine how one’s speech could have tragic consequences.

Furthermore, attempting to persuade a group of people to take any action means you should make sure that you understand the consequences of that action. Whether you are persuading people to vote for a political candidate or just encouraging them to lose weight, you should know what the short-term and long-term consequences of that decision could be. While our predictions of short-term and long-term consequences may not always be right, we have an ethical duty to at least think through the possible consequences of our speeches and the actions we encourage.

Practicing Ethical Public Speaking

Thus far in this section we’ve introduced you to the basics of thinking through the ethics of public speaking. Knowing about ethics is essential, but even more important to being an ethical public speaker is putting that knowledge into practice by thinking through possible ethical pitfalls prior to standing up and speaking out. Table 2.1 “Public Speaking Ethics Checklist” is a checklist based on our discussion in this chapter to help you think through some of these issues.

Table 2.1 Public Speaking Ethics Checklist

Key Takeaways

• All eight of the principles espoused in the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication can be applied to public speaking. Some of the principles relate more to the speaker’s role in communication, while others relate to both the speaker’s and the audience’s role in public speech.
• When preparing a speech, it is important to think about the ethics of public speaking from the beginning. When a speaker sets out to be ethical in his or her speech from the beginning, arriving at ethical speech is much easier.
• Fill out the “Public Speaking Ethics Checklist” while thinking about your first speech. Did you mark “true” for any of the statements? If so, why? What can you do as a speaker to get to the point where you can check them all as “false”?
• Robert is preparing a speech about legalizing marijuana use in the United States. He knows that his roommate wrote a paper on the topic last semester and asks his roommate about the paper in an attempt to gather information. During his speech, Robert orally cites his roommate by name as a source of his information but does not report that the source is his roommate, whose experience is based on writing a paper. In what ways does Robert’s behavior violate the guidelines set out in the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication?

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author, p. 349.

Associated Press. (2011, May 5). Conn. shekel shellacking. New York Post .

Shiffrin, S. H. (1999). Dissent, injustice and the meanings of America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stand up, Speak out Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Thinking Ethically

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources
• Ethical Decision Making

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children's teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is ; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

The Utilitarian Approach Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Rights Approach The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.

The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.

The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The Fairness or Justice Approach The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

The Common-Good Approach This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage."

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

The Virtue Approach The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

Ethical Problem Solving These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?

What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?

Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

Which course of action advances the common good?

Which course of action develops moral virtues?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

This article updates several previous pieces from Issues in Ethics by Manuel Velasquez - Dirksen Professor of Business Ethics at Santa Clara University and former Center director - and Claire Andre, associate Center director. "Thinking Ethically" is based on a framework developed by the authors in collaboration with Center Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good Michael J. Meyer, and others. The framework is used as the basis for many programs and presentations at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter Three – Ethical Implications

Defining Ethics

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again:  I  did not have sexual  relations with that woman , Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you. – President Bill Clinton, 1998

Some of the early leaders in philosophy—Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato—spoke extensively about morality and ethical principles. Aristotle is frequently cited as a central figure in the development of ethics as we discuss them today in the communication discipline. Aristotle claimed that a person who had ethos, or credibility, was not only able to convey good sense and good will, but also good morals. Great philosophers have debated the merits of living well, doing good, and even communicating skillfully. Smitter describes early Greeks and Romans as teachers of public speaking; these philosophers argued that public communication is “a means of civic engagement” and ethics are “a matter of virtue.”

Ethics and ethical communication are not only an important part of our lives and our decision-making but also are crucial to the public speaking process. In 2011, when Representative Anthony Weiner faced accusations of sending sexually explicit photographs, he vehemently denied any wrongdoing and claimed that he had been set up. Shortly after, his denial turned to an admission and apology. This scandal called into question the ethics of Rep. Weiner, yet it was also his lack of ethical communication that exacerbated the situation.

Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts. – Aristotle

Ethics and Ethical Standards

Morality is the process of discerning between right and wrong. Ethics involves making decisions about right and wrong within a dilemma. For example, you might claim that stealing is morally wrong. But is stealing morally wrong when a mother steals a loaf of bread to feed her four starving children? It’s this scenario that requires an understanding of ethics. In a moral dilemma, we apply ethics to make choices about what is good or bad, right or wrong. Sometimes, ethical dilemmas are simple. Other times, they require complex choices, such as the decision to report your immediate boss for misrepresenting expenses or the decision to move your grandmother into a retirement community. These scenarios are more complex than simple choices between right and wrong. Instead, these examples are ethical dilemmas because two “right” choices are pitted against one another. It’s good to report an unethical supervisor, but it’s also good to keep your job. It’s good that your grandmother feels independent, but it’s also positive for her to receive extra assistance as her health deteriorates.

As public speakers, we make ethical choices when preparing and delivering a speech. We can easily be faced with a moral dilemma over what information to provide or how to accurately represent that information. Knowing the speaking setting, the audience, and our knowledge of the topic, we are able to confront ethical dilemmas with a strong moral compass. This process is made easier by our ethical standards. Ethical standards, or moral principles, are the set of rules we abide by that make us “good” people and help us choose right from wrong. The virtuous standards to which we adhere influence our ethical understanding. For instance, followers of Buddha believe that communication should be careful—good communication should exhibit restraint, responsibility, and kindness. [1]

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. – Dalai Lama  

This stance informs one’s ethical standards. In fact, Merrill (2009) explains that the holy Dalai Lama, the Buddhist spiritual leader, believes compassion is even more essential than truth. Therefore, it is justifiable to be untruthful when the deception is part of the process of caring for another. This example illustrates how one’s belief system influences one’s ethical standards. These ethical standards are the guidelines we use to interpret rightness and wrongness in life, in relationships, and in public speaking. Wallace claims that “ethical standards of communication should place emphasis upon the means used to secure the end, rather than upon achieving the end itself.” [2]  This argument suggests that speakers must consider moral standards through every step of the speech process.

“Emerald Buddha”  by WPPilot.  CC-BY-SA .

“Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate.” [3] Once we have identified our ethical standards, we can apply these to make sure that we are communicating ethically. Ethical communication is an exchange of responsible and trustworthy messages determined by our moral principles. Ethical communication can be enacted in written, oral, and non-verbal communication. In public speaking, we use ethical standards to determine what and how to exchange messages with our audience. As you read further in this chapter, you will begin to understand the guidelines for how ethical communication should occur in the public speaking process.

Ethical Speaking

In January 2012, an Australian politician, Anthony Albanese,  presented a speech to the National  Press Club. Several people criticized  this speech, saying that he stole lines  from Michael Douglas’s character  (the U.S. President) in the movie  The  American President . Several specific  lines from Albanese’s speech did  seem to mirror Douglas’s monologue,  with only the names changed. The  Liberal Party federal director, Brian  Loughnane, claimed that this shows Albanese is “unoriginal and devoid of  ideas.” Others stated that he should  be embarrassed and should apologize  to the Parliament. [4]

What do you think about Albanese’s speech? Was this a simple mishap? A funny prank? Something more serious? What do you think this says about Albanese’s character? His reputation as a politician? Assessing your attitudes and values toward this situation is the same as considering how ethics play a role in public speaking.

Ethical public speaking is not a one-time event. It does not just occur when you stand to give a 5-minute presentation to your classmates or co-workers. Ethical public speaking is a process. This process begins when you begin brainstorming the topic of your speech. Every time you plan to speak to an audience—whether it is at a formal speaking event or an impromptu pitch at your workplace—you have ethical responsibilities to fulfill. The two most important aspects in ethical communication include your ability to remain honest while avoiding plagiarism and to set and meet responsible speech goals.

Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people . – Spencer Johnson

Be Honest and Avoid P lagiarism

Credible public speakers are open and honest with their audiences. Honesty includes telling your audience why you’re speaking and what you’ll address throughout your speech (thesis statement). For instance, one example of dishonest speech is when a vacation destination offers “complimentary tours and sessions” which are really opportunities for a salesperson to pitch a timeshare to unsuspecting tourists. In addition to being clear about the speech goal, honest speakers are clear with audience members when providing supporting information.

One example of dishonest public communication occurred in the music industry, where many cases of illegal melody lifting exist. For example, a famous Beach Boys song titled  Surfin’  USA is actually a note-for-note rendition of a 1958 Chuck Berry song. Though it may be common, the practice of not properly crediting an author for their work is unethical. Other examples of deceitful communication include political speeches that intentionally mislead the public. For instance, a former White House press aide, Scott McClellan, claims that President Bush misled the American people about reasons for the Iraqi war. McClellan claims that the President had manipulated sources in order to gain support for the war. Such claims can be damaging to one’s reputation. Thus, responsible public speakers must actively avoid plagiarism and remain committed to honesty and integrity at all costs.

Mimi & Eunice, “Thief”  by Nina Paley.  CC-BY-SA .

Identify Your Sources

The first step of ethical speech preparation is to take notes as you research your speech topic (Chapter 7 will thoroughly discuss research). Careful notes will help you remember where you learned your information. Recalling your sources is important because it enables speaker honesty. Passing off another’s work as your own or neglecting to cite the source for your information is considered  plagiarism . This unethical act can result in several consequences, ranging from a loss in credibility to academic expulsion or job loss. Even with these potential consequences, plagiarism is unfortunately common. In a national survey, 87 percent of students claimed that their peers plagiarized from the Internet at least some of the time. [5] This statistic does not take into account whether or not the plagiarism was intentional, occurring when speakers knowingly present information as their own; or unintentional, occurring when careless citing leads to information being uncredited or miscredited. However, it is important to note that being unaware of how to credit sources should not be an excuse for unintentional plagiarism. In other words, speakers are held accountable for intentional and unintentional plagiarism. The remainder of this section discusses how to ensure proper credit is given when preparing and presenting a speech.

A liar should have a good memory . – Quintilian

There are three distinct types of plagiarism—global, patchwork, and incremental plagiarism. [6]   Global plagiarism , the most obvious form of plagiarism, transpires when a speaker presents a speech that is not their own work. For example, if a student finds a speech on the Internet or borrows a former speech from a roommate and recites that speech verbatim, global plagiarism has occurred. Global plagiarism is the most obvious type of theft. However, other forms of plagiarism are less obvious but still represent dishonest public speaking.

If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything . – Mark Twain  

“Rainbow Dahlia quilt”  by Holice E. Turnbow.  CC-BY-SA .

Sometimes a student neglects to cite a source simply because they forgot where the idea was first learned. Shi explains that many students struggle with plagiarism because they’ve reviewed multiple texts and changed wording so that ideas eventually  feel like their own. Students engage in “‘patchwriting’ by copying from a source text and then deleting or changing a few words and altering the sentence structures.” [7] Patchwork plagiarism is plagiarism that occurs when one “patches” together bits and pieces from one or more sources and represents the end result as one’s own.  An example of patchwork plagiarism is if you create a speech by pasting together parts of another speech or author’s work. If you have ever seen a “patchwork” quilt, you will see the key similarities.

The third type of plagiarism is  incremental plagiarism, or when most of the speech is the speaker’s original work, but quotes or other information have been used without being cited. Incremental plagiarism can occur if, for example, you provide a statistic to support your claim, but do not provide the source for that statistic. Another example would be if a student included a direct quote from former president Ronald Reagan without letting the audience know that those were Reagan’s exact words. Understanding the different types of plagiarism is the first step in ensuring that you prepare an honest speech.

Decide When to Cite

When speaking publicly you must orally cite all information that isn’t general knowledge. For example, if your speech claims that the sun is a star, you do not have to cite that information since it’s general knowledge. If your speech claims that the sun’s temperature is 15.6 million Kelvin, [9]  then you should cite that source aloud. Ethical speakers are not required to cite commonly known information (e.g., skin is the largest human organ; Barack Obama was elected President of the U.S. in 2008). However, any information that isn’t general knowledge must be orally cited during a speech. The same is true in the text of a speech outline: cite all non-general information.

The OWL, an online writing lab at Purdue University, provides an excellent guide for when you need to cite information (see Table 3.1). Understanding when to include source material is the first step in being able to ethically cite sources. The next step in this process is to determine how to appropriately cite sources orally and in written materials.

Cite Sources Properly

You’ve learned the importance of citing sources. Now that you know why written and oral citations are important to the ethical process of public speaking, let’s focus on  how  to cite supporting speech material. Studies show that oftentimes students do not cite a source because they’re unsure of how or when to cite a reference. Shi’s study describes some typical responses for why students did not cite sources, such as “I couldn’t remember where I learned the information,” or “I had already cited that author and didn’t want the audience to think all of my information was from some outside source.” Though these rationales are understandable, they are not ethical.

Understand Paraphrasing and D irect Quotations

It is important to understand the process for paraphrasing and directly quoting sources in order to support your speech claims. First, what is the difference between paraphrasing and directly quoting a source? If you research and learn information from a source—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance— and then share that information in your  own  words; you don’t use quotation marks; but you do credit the CDC as your source. This is known as a  paraphrase —a sentence or string of sentences that shares learned information in your own words. A  direct quote  is any sentence or string of sentences that conveys an author’s idea word-for-word. According to the APA (American Psychological Association), when writing speech content, you must include quotation marks around an author’s work when you use his or her keywords, phrases, or sentences. This would be relevant for a speech outline, a handout, or a visual aid. It is also important to specify a direct quote when you are orally citing during your speech. This indicates to the audience that you are using the original author’s exact words. While it is acceptable to use the phrases “begin quote” and “end quote” to indicate this to your audience, such phrases can be distracting to the audience. One way to clearly and concisely indicate a direct quote is to take a purposeful pause right before and after the quoted material. This differentiates between your words and the source material’s words. See Table 3.2 for examples of how to paraphrase and directly quote an author, both in written speech materials and for an oral citation.

Develop Accurate Citations

Ethical speakers share source information with the audience. On written materials, such as handouts or speech outlines, citations are handled much like they would be in any essay; that is, likely in parenthesis. Oral citations, however, provide source information to audience members who will likely not see your written speech. In all citations, enough information should be given so that the audience can easily find the source.

You may choose to briefly describe the author before citing him or her to lend credibility to your supporting information. Writing style guidebooks, such as APA or MLA (Modern Language Association), teach that a source’s credentials are not necessary in the text of your paper. We can interpret that the same is true for providing oral citations in a speech–the author’s occupation, the source website, or the journal name are not required but may be helpful verbal cues to explain the legitimacy of your chosen source. You should provide enough information so that an audience member can locate the source. For instance, it might be useful to describe the doctor as a leading pediatrician–after which you would state the doctor’s last name, year of publication, and the quote or paraphrase. To orally paraphrase a Langer quote, you might say to your audience:

I really agree with Langer who wrote in her 1989 book Mindfulness , that our world is constructed from the categories we build in our mind. I find that I interpret the world based on my initial understanding of things and have to mindfully force myself to question the categories and biases I’ve formally created in my head.

Note, the Langer paraphrase provides the author’s last name, year of publication, and the title of the book should an audience member want to find the orally cited source.

Ethical speakers provide written, oral,  and visual citations. Visual aids, discussed in Chapter 14, include posters, objects, models, PowerPoints, and handouts. Visual aids are used to enhance your speech message. Visual aids, just like speech content, must be displayed ethically for the audience. In other words, if you use a poster to display a famous quote, then you should cite the author on your poster (see Figure 3.1). Similarly, you should cite sources on your PowerPoint throughout the presentation . It is not sufficient to include a “Sources” or “References” slide at the end of your PowerPoint because that does not accurately link each author to his or her work. Instead, ethical presenters provide an author reference on the slide in which the cited content is shown (see Figure 3.2).

Speakers should also carefully select and correctly cite images displayed in their visual aid. Images should be relevant to the keywords used on your PowerPoint slide. In other words, captions are not necessary because the image can stand alone; images you display should obviously correlate with your speech content (a caption is typically used because the picture  needs  explanation). In other words, the presence of a caption typically means your image does not directly correspond with the verbal speech material. Images should support, not distract, from the verbal or visual message. Hence, there is no need for blinking, rotating, or otherwise distracting visual aids. [12] Images should be simple and relevant. All pictures should be cited, unless the presenter uses a personal, clipart, or purchased stock image. To cite an image, simply include the credit (or web link) to that picture; note, however, the font size of the link should be reduced so that it is visible to the audience without distracting from the content in your visual aid. Seeing an image link should not be distracting to audience members.

It’s also important to understand how copyright law might affect what and how you include information in your speech and on your visual aid. The fair use provision allows for copyrighted information to be shared if it is used for educational benefits, news reporting, research, and in other situations. Nolo explains, “In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.” [13]  In order to determine if the use of content falls under the fair use provision, there are four factors to consider:

• How will this be used?
• What is to be used?
• How much will be used?
• What effect does this have? [14]

You can find more about these four factors at the  U.S. Copyright website .

“Question copyright”  by Ttog~commonswiki.  CC-BY-SA .

Ethical citing includes crediting authors in the text of your written speech materials, acknowledging authors aloud during your speech, and citing images and sources on your visual aid. However, ethics in public speaking encompass more than crediting source material. It’s also necessary to strive for responsible speech goals.

Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar. – David Herbert Lawrence

Set Responsible Speech Goals

Jensen coined the term “rightsabilities” to explain how a communicator must balance tensions between speaker rights and responsibility to others. Ensuring that you have responsible speech goals is one way to achieve ethical communication in public speaking. There are several speech goals that support this mission. This section will focus on five goals: 1) promote diversity, 2) use inclusive language, 3) avoid hate speech, 4) raise social awareness, and 5) employ respectful free speech.

“U.S. Air Force”  by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown. Public domain.

Promote Diversity

One important responsibility speakers have is fostering  diversity,  or an appreciation for differences among individuals and groups. Diversity in public speaking is important when considering both your audience and your speech content. Promoting diversity allows audience members who may be different from the speaker to feel included and can present a perspective to which audience members had not previously been exposed. Speakers may choose a speech topic that introduces a multicultural issue to the audience or can promote diversity by choosing language and visual aids that relate to and support listeners of different backgrounds. Because of the diversity present in our lives, it is necessary to consider how speakers can promote diversity.

One simple way of promoting diversity is to use both sexes in your hypothetical examples and to include co-cultural groups when creating a hypothetical situation. For example, you can use names that represent both sexes and that also stem from different cultural backgrounds. Ethical speakers also encourage diversity in races, socioeconomic status, and other demographics. These choices promote diversity. In addition, ethical speakers can strive to break stereotypes. For instance, if you’re telling a hypothetical story about a top surgeon in the nation, why not make the specialized surgeon a female from a rural area? Or make the hypothetical secretary a man named Frank? You could also include a picture in your visual aid of the female surgeon or the male secretary at work. Ethical speakers should not assume that a nurse is female or that a firefighter is male. Sexist language can alienate your audience from your discussion. [15]

Excellence is the best deterrent to racism or sexism. – Oprah Winfrey

Use Inclusive Language

Avoiding sexist language is one way to use inclusive language. Another important way for speakers to develop responsible language is to use inclusionary pronouns and phrases. For example, novice speakers might tell their audience: “One way for you to get involved in the city’s  Clean Community  Program  is to pick up trash on your street once a month.” Instead, an effective public speaker could exclaim: “One way for all of us to get involved in our local communities is by picking up trash on a regular basis.” This latter statement is an example of  “we”  language —pronouns and phrases that unite the speaker to the audience. “We” language (instead of “I” or “You” language) is a simple way to build a connection between the speaker, speech content, and audience. This is especially important during a persuasive speech as “we” language establishes trust, rapport, and goodwill between the speaker and the audience. Take, for example, the following listener relevance statements in a persuasive speech about volunteering:

“You” language:  You may say that  you’re too busy to volunteer, but I  don’t agree. I’m here to tell you that  you should be volunteering in your  community.

“We” language:  As college  students, we all get busy in our daily  lives and sometimes helpful acts such  as volunteering aren’t priorities in  our schedules. Let’s explore how we  can be more active volunteers in our  community.

In this exchange, the “you” language sets the speaker apart from the audience and could make listeners defensive about their time and lack of volunteering. On the other hand, the “we” language connects the speaker to the audience and lets the audience know that the speaker understands and has some ideas for how to fix the problem. This promotes a feeling of inclusiveness, one of the responsible speech goals.

Avoid Hate Speech

Another key aspect of ethical speaking is to develop an awareness of spoken words and the power of words. The NCA Credo of Ethical Communication highlights the importance of this awareness: “We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.” [16]  Words can be powerful—both in helping you achieve your speech goal and in affecting your audience in significant ways. It is essential that public speakers refrain from hate or sexist language. Hate speech, according to Verderber, Sellnow, and Verderber, “is the use of words and phrases not only to demean another person or group but also to express hatred and prejudice.” [17]  Hate  language  isolates a particular person or group in a derogatory manner. Michael Richards, famous for the role of Cosmo Kramer on  Seinfeld , came under fire for his hate speech during a comedy routine in 2006. Richards used several racial epithets and directed his hate language towards African-Americans and Mexicans. [18]  Richards apologized for his outbursts, but the damage to his reputation and career was irrevocable. Likewise, using hate speech in any public speaking situation can alienate your audience and take away your credibility, leading to more serious implications for your grade, your job, or other serious outcomes. It is your responsibility as the speaker to be aware of sensitive material and be able to navigate language choices to avoid offending your audience.

No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world. – Robin Williams

Raise Social Awareness

Speakers should consider it their ethical responsibility to educate listeners by introducing ideas of racial, gender, or cultural diversity, but also by raising  social awareness , or the recognition of important issues that affect societies. Raising social awareness is a task for ethical speakers because educating peers on important causes empowers others to make a positive change in the world. Oftentimes when you present a speech, you have the opportunity to raise awareness about growing social issues. For example, if you’re asked to present an informative speech to your classmates, you could tell them about your school’s athletic tradition  or  you could discuss  Peace One Day —a campaign that promotes a single day of worldwide cease-fire, allowing crucial food and medicine supplies to be shipped into warzone areas. [19] If your assignment is to present a persuasive speech, you could look at the assignment as an opportunity to convince your classmates to (a) stop texting while they drive, (b) participate in a program that supports US troops by writing personal letters to deployed soldiers or (c) buy a pair of TOMS (tomsshoes.com) and find other ways to provide basic needs to impoverished families around the world. Of course, those are just a few ideas for how an informative or persuasive speech can be used to raise awareness about current social issues. It is your responsibility as a speaker to share information that provides knowledge or activates your audience toward the common good. [20]

“Raising John T. Williams Memorial Totem Pole”  by Joe Mabel.  CC-BY-SA .

One way to be successful in attaining your speech goal while also remaining ethical is to consider your audience’s moral base. Moon identifies a principle that allows the speaker to justify his or her perspective by finding common moral ground with the audience. [21]  This illustrates to the audience that you have goodwill but allows you to still use your moral base as a guide for responsible speech use. For example, even though you are a vegetarian and believe that killing animals for food is murder, you know that the majority of your audience does not feel the same way. Rather than focusing on this argument, you decide to use Moon’s principle and focus on animal cruelty. By highlighting the inhumane ways that animals are raised for food, you appeal to the audience’s moral frame that abusing animals is wrong—something that you and your audience can both agree upon.

If we lose love and self-respect for each other, this is how we finally die. – Maya Angelou

Employ Respectful Free Speech

We live in a nation that values freedom of speech. Of course, due to the First Amendment, you have the right and ability to voice your opinions and values to an audience. However, that freedom of speech must be balanced with your responsibility as a speaker to respect your audience. Offending or degrading the values of your audience members will  not  inform or persuade them. For example, let’s say you want to give a persuasive speech on why abortion is morally wrong. It’s your right to voice that opinion. Nevertheless, it’s important that you build your case without offending your audience members— since you don’t know everyone’s history or stance on the subject. Showing disturbing pictures on your visual aid may not “make your point” in the way you intended. Instead, these pictures may send audience members into an emotional tailspin (making it difficult for them to hear your persuasive points because of their own psychological noise). Freedom of speech is a beautiful American value, but ethical speakers must learn to balance their speech freedom with their obligation to respect each audience member.

Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized. – Benjamin Haydon

• Merrill, J. C. (2009). Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama: Universal compassion. In C. Christians & J. Merrill (Eds.), Ethical communication  (pp. 11 – 17). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.  ↵
• Wallace, K. (1955). An ethical basis of communication. Speech Teacher ,  4 , 1–9. 
• National Communication Association. (1999). NCA credo for ethical communication. Retrieved from  http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/About_NCA/Leadership_and_Governance/Public_Policy_Platform/PDF-PolicyPlatformNCA_Credo_for_Ethical_Communication.pdf   ↵
• ABC News. (2012, January 25). Albanese accused of plagiarising Hollywood speech. Retrieved from  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-25/albanese-accused-ofplagiarising-speech/3793486   ↵
• Cruikshank, B. (2004). Plagiarism: It’s Alive!  Texas Library Journal ,  80 (4), 132–136.  ↵
• Lucas, S. E. (2001).  The art of public speaking  (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.  ↵
• Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–24.  ↵
• O’Neill, M. T. (1980). Plagiarism: Writing Responsibly.  Business Communication Quarterly ,  43 , 34–36.  ↵
• Stolley, K., & Brizee, A. (2011, August 24). Avoiding plagiarism. Retrieved from  https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/   ↵
• Nine Planets. (2011). The Sun. Retrieved from  http://nineplanets.org/sol.html   ↵
• Rohr, R. (2011).  Falling upward: A spirituality for the two halves of life.  San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.  ↵
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Are you at high risk for serious illness from flu? Retrieved from  http://www.cdc.gov/Features/FluHighRisk/   ↵
• Danoff-Burg, J. (2002). PowerPoint writing guide. Retrieved from  http://eices.columbia.edu/education-training/see-u/dr/ppt_writing.html   ↵
• Nolo. (2010). What is fair use? Copyright and fair use, Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved from  http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html   ↵
• Harper, G. K. (2007). Copyright Crash Course. Retrieved from  http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html   ↵
• Driscoll, D. L., & Brizee, A. (2010, July 13). Stereotypes and biased language. Retrieved from  https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/608/05   ↵
• Verderber, R. F., Sellnow, D. D., & Verderber, K. S. (2012).  The challenge of effective speaking  (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.  ↵
• Farhi, P. (2006, November 21). ‘Seinfeld’ comic Richards apologizes for racial rant. The Washington Post. Retrieved from  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/   ↵
• Peace One Day. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from  http://www.peaceoneday.org/en/about/Introduction   ↵
• Mill, J.S. (1987). Utilitarianism. In A. Ryan (Ed.),  Utilitarianism and other essays  (pp. 272 – 338). New York: Penguin Classics.  ↵

CC LICENSED CONTENT, SHARED PREVIOUSLY

• Chapter 3 Ethical Speaking.  Authored by : Alyssa Millner and Rachel Price.  Provided by : King College and University of Kentucky.  Located at :  http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html .  Project : Public Speaking Project.  License :  CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
• ME 109 Thief.  Authored by : Nina Paley.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ME_109_Thief.png .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Rainbow Dhalia quilt. Authored by : Holice E. Turnbow.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RainbowDhalia_quilt.jpg .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Question copyright.  Authored by : Stephan Baum and ttog.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Question_copyright.svg .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Raising John T. Williams Memorial Totem Pole 300.  Authored by : Joe Mabel.  Located at :  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raising_John_T._Williams_Memorial_Totem_Pole_300.jpg .  License :  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Chapter 3 Defining Ethics.  Authored by : Alyssa Millner and Rachel Price.  Provided by : King College and University of Kentucky.  Located at :  http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html .  Project : Public Speaking Project.  License :  CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

PUBLIC DOMAIN CONTENT

Principles of Public Speaking Copyright © 2022 by Katie Gruber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Speak Up About Ethical Issues at Work

by Amy Gallo

Sometimes you sense that something isn’t right at work. You suspect that your finance colleague might be fudging numbers, your boss isn’t telling his manager the truth about an important project, or your co-worker is skipping out of the office early but leaving her computer on so it looks like she’s just down the hall. How do you know when it’s worth speaking up or not? Can you you protect yourself from potential consequences of calling out bad behavior? And when you do decide to say something, what do you say and to whom?

Partner Center