Ethical Persuasion

I recently heard the phrase “Ethical Persuasion” and it really struck me as an interesting and thoughtful phrase. Especially considering the recent election cycle our country just endured. And I use the term endure very intentionally.

As I understand it, ethical persuasion means using respect, understanding, caring, and fairness when attempting to persuade another to consider your point of view. It contrasts with a lot of what I saw during the election campaign, especially in terms of the advertising that all of us were inundated with in the months leading up to Election Day.

I think we can all agree, wherever we may place ourselves on the political spectrum, that a great deal of advertising done during an election veered away from ethical persuasion. Ads from both sides varied from a slight stretching the truth or taking a quote or action out of context, all the way to out and out falsehoods. Sadly, there is little recourse for candidates (and citizens) who may find themselves at the wrong end of one of these ads attempting to engage in unethical persuasion. It makes one wonder if the ends justify the means, though clearly those involved in financing and creating the ads have made that calculation and believe the answer to that question to be “yes.”

But I’m not sure the ends justify the means, and I’m willing to bet that many of you reading this feel the same way.

Of course, this isn’t a blog about politics, and the point of this blog is to talk about ethical persuasion and how it relates to those of us in the field of serving individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I’ve been thinking lately about the language we use and if we are using it appropriately and ethically.

For example, I have heard on more than one occasion the individuals we serve described as “our most vulnerable citizens.” That’s powerful language, and certainly draws attention, but is it really true? Are the people we serve more vulnerable than those who are economically poor, or children who don’t have enough to eat, or who live in neighborhoods with high crime rates? Are we just engaging in hyperbole in order to make people pay more attention to our particular cause or issue? And if we are engaging in hyperbole, is that OK if it leads for more opportunities to meet the needs of those we serve?

Let’s take it a step further. I have often said to legislators and others who regulate the funding and delivery of services in our field that the rates we receive at Imagine! for delivering the services don’t support the services we provide. Now, I firmly believe that is true, and I have the data to back my belief. However, I fully understand that what I’m saying when I make that argument is that our providers (many of whom are Imagine! employees) don’t get paid enough for the work they do, and they need to earn more. Others could argue that they get paid too much. Some would say that if more funding goes into our system, it should go directly to families or the individuals we serve, not to the organizations providing the services. Some would say that there is already too much money in the system and we should be looking to cut how much is spent.

So am I engaging in ethical persuasion when I say that our rates aren’t adequate? Can I defend this position and say I am using respect, understanding, caring, and fairness when attempting to persuade someone else to consider my point of view? I think so, but . . .

Then again, what do I know?