PW 5000 Free Choice Assignment

                                                                                                                                                                       

Jesse Ports

Professor Watman

PW 5000 – Professional Writing and Rhetoric

10/13/10



                                                          Chapter 4, Project 1 – Applying Porter’s Principles of Ethics

Just –

         I have been asked to develop improvements in processing the merchandise we are trying to expunge from our society. After examining our procedures, I was able to develop an effective method of increasing our productivity; however, if I am to follow Porter’s principles of ethical writing, I cannot in good conscience submit my plan to my superior.

         While the presentation I had prepared was well-organized and convincing, it failed to address crucial aspects of Porter’s ethics, especially the idea of doing no harm through my writing, and to avoid using my rhetoric to oppress or dominate others (Peeples 207). This, of course, is exactly what we are doing: oppressing others who are different than ourselves. We display rhetoric at its most sinister when we call innocent human beings “merchandise” and refer to systematic murder as “processing;” after taking a broader view of ethics into account, having to write of these atrocities in such an unassuming manner makes me feel ill.

         We as Nazis certainly acknowledge differences, as Porter (204) mentions, but we fail to follow up with the necessary respect, to embrace and celebrate it, to be “in awe of the mystery of difference.” (205). Instead, we fear the mystery, and use that fear to entice others to commit acts that would otherwise sicken them. Many of our people, at least on the surface, have bought into the slaughter of Jews and other minorities as acceptable. But even such as large group of people can be wrong; they can be oppressive (202) and evil.

         This leaves me in a difficult situation. I cannot stop the rest of the Nazis on my own; if I stood up and expressed my disgust at their actions, I would stand a good chance of being exterminated myself. Porter’s ethical guidelines do not address sacrificing oneself for others. Given that my immediate task is to write a recommendation to improve these death vehicles, perhaps I can attempt some subtle sabotage. Instead of using my rhetorical skills to convince my superior of the best way to improve these procedures, I will suggest changes that make these killings less effective. Maybe, if those working with these trucks get frustrated enough, they will do away with the procedure and be forced to come up with something more humane, or even to let the Jews live. It’s a long shot, and knowing the hateful nature of the Nazis they will surely find another way to commit their atrocities, but at the very least I will no longer be an active part of this system that destroys so many lives, and I can find some solace in knowing that my writing abilities did not directly lead to a more efficient murder.

                                                                                                                                                                           



Stephen –

         I am required to write a report on the recent test of an electronic controller (ELCON) for an aircraft engine. During the test, we introduced the engine to extremely cold weather and the engine refused to start up. We tried it numerous times, probably 45 times in a half an hour, but it seemed hopeless.

         Ordinarily, I would be sure to try to dilute this fact a bit. I wouldn’t lie, but I might carefully phrase my report to tone down the frustration we felt while attempting to start the ELCON over and over again, without changing any of the data or hiding the fact that it was having some issues. Porter’s system of writing ethics is causing me to doubt that strategy, though. He says that “at the point when you begin to write, you begin to define yourself ethically.” (203). I can’t help but wonder: would my report truly be ethical?

         On the surface, it may seem as if I am doing the right thing. After all, I’m considered a good writer by those in my department. I know how to balance my words to tell the truth while highlighting certain aspects to make the readers focus on the positive. This makes both my employers and the customers happy, because we’re working with very expensive and important equipment and they like to hear that the testing is going well; that their investment is paying off.

         But I need to use more than technicalities and my immediate audience to determine the ethical standing of my writing; Porter says that we can’t just use “a scientific, rigorous, rules-based approach to settling ethical decisions” (203). I need to think beyond that – how will my writing actually affect others? Could it possibly hurt anyone? An aircraft engine not being able to start in cold weather is a potentially serious issue. If this problem is not fixed, it could ultimately cause the end user to lose money and time. If I am to follow Porter’s system of ethical writing, I may be required to risk the ire of my superiors and disappointment of the customers by explaining openly how hopeless this procedure seemed; that, in my opinion, we were never going to start up this engine while the temperature was so low. If I am to use phronesis, to make an ethical determination on how to act even in a muddled situation (203), then I need to be able to sacrifice my ability to avoid condemnation on the job, even my status as a “good” writer, if it means helping the customer in the long run by encouraging my company to put more time and money into redesigning part of this component to work in cold weather. After all, isn’t that why we test it? To learn what needs to be fixed?

                                                                                                                                                                       



Commentary –

         Both of these documents would be changed significantly if the authors followed Porter’s system of writing ethics. Just’s memo would obviously change more drastically – his ethical dilemma is extreme and goes beyond issues that would arise in a typical professional writing situation. He clearly has strong rhetorical skills and would still produce a well thought-out document, but he would be forced to either mislead his superiors by making an opposite point or hold back his writing abilities and submit a less convincing memo. Either choice would be harmful to himself. Stephen’s document encounters a milder ethical dilemma. His original document may be ethical for the standards of his company and what is expected of him, but in order to follow Porter’s guidelines he would have to be more forthright and risk some backlash by emphasizing the need to fix something that was evidently not properly designed. The wishy-washy sentences over which he had agonized for so long would become much clearer, demonstrating the extent of the problem without any attempts to hide it behind vague wording. Stephen may lose some of his reputation for playing the political games between writers, employers and customers, but in the end he will have produced a document more attuned to Porter’s ethical standards.



                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                Works Cited



Peeples, Tim. Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings From the Field. “Framing Postmodern

         Commitment and Solidarity,” by James Porter. New York: Longman. 2003. Pgs 202-216.