By Amanda Brown
I am taking a communication class on persuasion this semester. As an aspiring journalist, forming a solid understanding of the many workings of persuasion felt like a necessary and beneficial step.
During a lecture in this class early in the semester, the instructor asked us,
“Is persuasion good or bad?” Because the class was an online recording, he immediately answered the question for us:
“Persuasion is ethically neutral,” he said.
Whoa, what an interesting term. That never would’ve been my answer, mainly because I don’t remember ever hearing those words together (maybe as a senior in college studying communication, I shouldn’t admit that. Chalk it up to either bad timing or a poor memory – I was definitely already learning).
If I could’ve answered during the lecture, I would’ve said,
“It can be both. It depends on how you use it.”
But really, that would’ve been the correct answer, just using more words. That’s what ethically neutral means, right? There is an object, idea or concept, and it has no feelings or power…until someone uses it.
What else is ethically neutral?
Food? It’s necessary to live, but in excess can be harmful or even fatal. Food can’t tell you how or when to consume it or the amount. Food exists and we determine whether it will be beneficial or harmful to our bodies.
Drugs? Used as medication, drugs have saved and improved countless lives. But the misuse and abuse of those same drugs has also taken and ruined countless lives.
What about guns? Oh no…suddenly this got awkward and political, but it doesn’t have to be. Objectively speaking, is a gun not also ethically neutral? It can be used just as easily to save a life as used to take one.
It seems, then, that it is far less about the objects and far more about our behavior, choices and actions when it comes to these various ethically neutral aspects of life. We humans get into the habit of blaming things, objects, ideas, and concepts to take the onus off ourselves. We blame inanimate things instead of the humans who wield them, I think especially when that human is us. In doing this, we give power to objects that really have none and pass up opportunities to hold ourselves accountable.
There’s another aspect of ethical neutrality that we can hide behind. Sometimes we call it tolerance or open-mindedness. These things can be good, yes. Minding your own business can be good. But it can also be damaging when it comes at the expense of recognizing good and evil, and opposing evil. When tolerance turns into indifference, virtue is lost.
Albert Einstein famously said, “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything about it.”
If things like goodness, virtue and integrity are worth reaching for and preserving, then we cannot always be ethically neutral in our personal lives.
What are your thoughts on ethical neutrality? Do you agree or disagree with my assessments?
