Ethics in conflict

1. Ethics in conflict COMM 411 Communication in Conflict Management Dr. Amy M. Bippus

2. Why do you want to study conflict communication? • To learn how win arguments? • To understand yourself better? • To be a better family member/friend/romantic partner/co-worker? • To understand conflict as a social dynamic? • Other reasons?

3. What is ethical communication? How can we be unethical in our communication during conflicts? What sorts of behaviors would constitute ethical conflict?

5. Objectives: • Sensitize us to the inherency of potential ethical issues in conflict communication process • Highlight the complexities and difficulties involved in making evaluations of communication ethics • Encourage us to develop thoughtfully our own workable approach to assessing communication ethics • Enhance our ability to make specifically focused and carefully considered ethical judgments Adapted from R. L. Johannesen’s (2002) Ethics in Human Communication .

6. Ethics vs. morals “Ethics refers to theory, to abstract universal principles and their sources, whereas moral implies practicing those principles of applied ethics, or culture-bound modes of conduct.” From J. V. Jensen’s (1997), Ethical Issues in the Communication Process.

7. Conflict Case Study I Mr. Hernandez is the newly chairman of the city council as Chairman. The city must close one of the local parks for financial reasons, but there is no agreement over which one. Parks are the heart of the community – they have green spaces, community meeting places, and recreational programs for citizens, not to mention their effect on the surrounding property values. During his election to the city council, Mr. Hernandez had proposed a series of “Open Meetings” in which members of the community could voice their opinions. He hoped that the dialogue would make the community realize the necessity of closing a park and foster support for the council’s decision. But at the first Open Meeting, speakers were openly hostile toward the idea and the council, and the meeting barely closed without fist-fights. Some council members later received threatening phone calls. Mr. Hernandez considers cancelling the next Open Meeting.

8. Kohlberg’s Moral Stages Level I Pre-moralKohlberg, Lawrence (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. Journal of Philosophy ,70, 630-646. Stage 1: Obedience and punishment Person thinks that rules are prescribed by a powerful authority, which/he must unquestioningly obey; threat of punishment makes something wrong i.e., Is Mr. Hernandez required by law to have Open Meetings? Stage 2: Individualism and exchange Person realizes that not all people see rules the same way, so people are free to pursue their individual interests; give to others in order to get in return i.e., Will it make it easier for Mr. Hernandez not to have an Open Meeting?

9. Kohlberg’s Moral Stages Level II: Conventional morality Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships Person moves toward consideration of motives, focuses on “good” character traits, and looks to standards of family or community i.e., Do good council members take input from their constituents?; or Will I look bad to my colleagues if I don’t preserve the safety of the council? Stage 4: Maintaining social order Person thinks of behaviors in terms of society as a whole – how would the world be if we all did/not act this way? i.e., How can the city’s government work if citizens aren’t allowed input?

10. Kohlberg’s Moral Stages Level III. Postconventional Morality Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights Person recognizes that society needs to preserve individual rights; rules = social agreements that can be changed through democratic procedures i.e., How can Mr. Hernandez give residents a chance to participate in the decision process in an orderly way? Stage 6: Universal Principles* Person feels that inner conscience takes precedence over social order or specific laws i.e., Is the chaos of the meetings justified given the importance of this issue to residents?

11. Class activity • In groups, share conflicts you have had that involved ethical decisions or dilemmas. The situation must present a behavioral dilemma, requiring a decision about two courses of action. It can be based on a situation in your family, workplace, school, or elsewhere. • Decide on 1 scenario from each group to be turned into a short (<250 word) case study. We will then make these the basis for discussion on this week’s conferences. I will edit them for appropriateness. Include the following: False names for the main parties involved A description of the central dispute A description of the issues or factor involved

12. For next class… Read “Good Samaritans: No middle ground” article (e-reserve) Next Topic: Moral decision making in conflict

13. “Good Samaritan” article Main points?

14. Conflict Case Study II Deanna is struggling in her chemistry class. She has fallen behind due to an illness, and now has to take a make-up exam for which she is not well prepared. Her professor seats her alone in a conference room to take the exam and then returns to his office. She realizes that he has given her the answer key along with her exam.

15. Moral Decision Making • Moral sensitivity: interpreting a situation in terms of how one’s actions affect the welfare of others • Moral judgment: formulating what a moral course of action would be • Moral motivation: deciding on an action among competing possibilities • Moral character: acting out what one intends to do Rest, J.R. (1984). Research on moral development: Implications for training counseling psychologists.  Counseling Psychologist, 12, 19-29.

16. What is fair in conflicts? Two principles for fairness in interpersonal conflicts: • Equal chance principle - the harm for each person should be minimized to a roughly equal degree; if not possible, each person should receive the highest equal chance to avoid harm • Importance principle – the importance of each party’s interests are weighed; the stronger the interest, the more reason to favor the person to whom it belongs Segev, R. (2006). Well-being and fairness. Philosophical Studies, 131, 369-391.

17. Conflict Case Study III Derek and Heidi are dating and are moving into an apartment together. They disagree about how to split the rent. Derek earns about 2/3 of what Heidi does, and has medical bills from a car accident to pay back. Heidi has no debt, but is saving for an extended trip abroad with her family.

18. National Communication Association We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication. We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages. 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 accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences for our own communication and expect the same of others. From http://www.natcom.org/nca/Template2.asp?bid=514

19. Conference board discussion After reading the conflict dilemma presented to your group (from last class), discuss the following questions in with your group this week : a. What are reactions that people might have to this dilemma reflecting each of Kohlberg's stages? b. What would be the moral “ideal” in this situation? What are some other deciding factors to be considered? What are some factors that might prevent the parties from acting on this ideal? c. What would YOU do in this situation, and why?

20. You’re now ready for the test!