 | An Ethics of Political Communication Subjects: Communication Studies; Humanities; Politics & International Relations; Communication Ethics; Political Communication; Political Theory; Philosophy; Media & Film Studies; Regulatory Policy; Epistemology; Ethics Philosophy; Political Philosophy; Public Ethics; Journalism & Professional Media; Working in the tradition of analytic philosophy, Alexander Brown argues that many different forms of political communication (or anti-communication) that often infuriate the public can also be ethically or morally objectionable. These forms include question dodging, offering scripted answers, stonewalling, not listening, disseminating propaganda, pandering, being insincere, giving false denials, issuing revisionist interpretations, refusing to take responsibility, never apologising, boasting, and gaslighting. Brown invokes a host of normative reasons including those having to do with epistemic arrogance, interference in autonomy, and violating the right to be heard. This is not to say that, all things considered, politicians should never engage in dubious political communication. Sometimes these are necessary evils. Brown argues, however, that further moral inquiry is needed to show why they are evils, and to determine when the use of these rhetorical tactics can be excessive, unreasonable, or out of place. Key Features: Alexander Brown is a reader in political and legal theory at the University of East Anglia (UEA). He is the author of The Politics of Hate Speech Laws (2020), A Theory of Legitimate Expectations for Public Administration (2017), Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination (2015), Ronald Dworkin's Theory of Equality (2009), and Personal Responsibility: Why it Matters (2009). |
