Golden Mean

Practicing public relations is not all black and white. As it involves the intimate act of communicating, more often than not there is much grayness to it. Such a reality was first acknowledged approximately 2500 years ago by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In wrestling with the ethics of communication, Aristotle attempted to reconcile what scholars David Guth and Charles Marsh called the "extremes of excess and deficiency." Out of his contemplation, Aristotle came upon a point in communication he labeled the "golden mean." Basically, it represents a balance between those two extremes.

Specifically, Aristotle raised the question of whether it is ever right or acceptable to lie. Should one always tell the truth no matter the consequences? On the other hand, is it acceptable for people to take liberties with the truth to fit their circumstances? A classic example revolves protecting another person's life. Is it ok for someone to tell a lie if it means saving another's life, particularly if that other person is not involved in any wrong doing? If one believes it is, then that immediately raises that larger question: under what circumstances is it acceptable to lie? Does this apply, for instance, only those times when a person's life is at stake?

Should public relations practitioners be absolutists when it comes to truth telling? If not, then how can this be reconciled with a commitment they have to being credible and tellers of truth? Under what circumstances is it acceptable for them to lie? And what about those who are not professional communicators, is it all right for them to turn away from the truth? If so, then under what circumstances? Finding the "golden mean" for any of us, professional and non-professional communicators, is not easy. What complicates this issue even more is the fact there is no universal understanding of when lies are acceptable.