Developing an ethical theory for the Information Age is a somewhat different proposition from the development of traditional communication ethics has been. From Aristotle to Rawls, the focuses of previous theories have been primarily on honesty, on secrecy to a lesser degree, and almost always on personal ethics. That is, the major ethical theorists have determined that the ethical burden should fall on the shoulders of the individual and what he or she should say. The ethical situations and dilemmas that are considered are almost always in a dyadic communication relationship; that is, one sender, one receiver, and one message. Contemporary communication is often far more complex than that, with mass audiences, multiple channels, and mixed messages. This paper will first examine four major traditional ethical theories and how they would work in this complex world, and then propose an alternative ethics for the global communication media.
Aristotle's ethical theory is often given the short-hand term of "the Golden Mean." For Aristotle, the highest moral standard was moderation, and he felt that a virtuous moderation could be found between two extreme vices. The most common example of this is the virtue of "courage," which lies somewhere between "cowardice" and "foolhardiness." In communication, however, Aristotle seems to imply that there is only one extreme position: falsehood. "Falsehood," he writes, "is in itself mean and culpable, and truth noble and full of praise" (in Griffin, 1994, p. 464). Griffin suggests that in fact there are indeed extremes, absolute falsehood and absolute truth, or absolute secrecy and absolute disclosure, with the means then being "truthful statements" or "proper disclosure." Either case can work well in interpersonal communications of low complexity. However, in a highly complex world, the flaw is the notion that there is a perfect and ineffable "Truth" to which any speaker can attest. ...