This
was the third paper I had to write in six weeks for Comm 384: Ethics
in Communication. If you can get into Dr. Westerfelhaus' course,
I definitely recommend you do!
Jeremy
Bentham, one of the founders of Utilitarianism, believed his philosophy
could provide for the “greatest happiness of the greatest number
of people”. However benign it may sound, at the heart of Utilitarianism
is a cold, teleological process which reduces happiness to a mere
commodity. It is even worse that Saul Alinsky would extend
this philosophy to a point where the truth becomes relative, justice
becomes a tool of those powerful enough to wield it, and any means
are justified to reach one’s desired ends.
Utilitarianism’s focus on outcomes inevitably leads to a lack of
concern with the means used to accomplish a given outcome.
This allows for a process in which the rules of conduct are vague,
open to interpretation, and less important than one’s objective.
This lack of absolute standards clearly violates several key standards
of Martin Buber’s Dialogic values, which I believe are essential
to ethical communication. These standards stress the importance
of the authenticity and honesty of one’s message and intentions,
inclusion of different points of view, valuing the worth of others,
and communicating in a status-free environment of equality for those
involved in the process of communication.
In “Reveille for Radicals”, Alinsky, a social activist, outlined
his rules of engagement for other activists and radicals, and revealed
his utilitarian and relativistic standards for communication.
Believing “a successful outcome may allow the suspect means to be
rationalized”, he sees no problem in using the ends to justify the
actions used to achieve them. Alinsky views war as societal
conflict of any kind where “there are no rules of fair play” and
even goes so far as to advocate masking agendas that may seem complex
or controversial, in order to avoid losing popular support: “Goals
must be phrased in powerful general terms”.
While Alinsky’s advocacy of relativistic values in communication
is regrettable in any application, it is far worse that he advocated
the application of his approach to communication towards the attainment
and use of power. Contrary to what Alinsky believes to be
acceptable and justifiable practices, I believe political power
should be carefully regulated, and those who wield that power should
be closely watched by a fully-informed public. His relativistic
outlook towards means, lack of absolute standards, and hidden agendas
creates a framework which empowers those who are strong enough to
take power, and callous enough to use that power as they see fit.
Mankind
should consider itself fortunate to have survived a century in which
dictators promising a better future for the masses eagerly fed millions
of sacrificial lambs into battlefields, concentration camps, and
gulags around the world, for the alleged benefit of the “masses”.
These killing grounds were often fueled by demagogues who used the
utilitarian communication principles espoused by Saul Alinsky to
seize power, implement their brutish political agendas at home,
and initiate devastating wars with other nations. If we wish
to break this cycle of brutality and atrocity, and build a more
productive and peaceful existence for humanity, I believe we must
learn to reject the siren call of utilitarian values, and embrace
values which uphold the dignity and worth of each and every individual.
Got
something to say? Email me!
