Is it ever ethical to be devoid of content and opt instead for colorful language?

Jonathan knows he hasn’t really prepared for his speech very well. Instead of going to the library, he went to a party over the weekend. Instead of finding supporting evidence, he went to the movies with his best friend. Two days before he’s going to give his speech, Jonathan decides that he won’t even bother with the library. Instead, he opts to just write out a quick speech and fill it with lots of “flowery” language. He creates a number of interesting similes and metaphors. He makes sure that his speech has a fun rhythm to it and has some great instances of alliteration. Upon finishing his preparation, Jonathan thinks to himself, Well, the speech may have no content, but no one will really notice.
1. Is it ever ethical to be devoid of content and opt instead for colorful language?
2. Should language ever be a substitute for strong arguments?
3. If you were a friend of Jonathan’s, how would you explain to him that his behavior was unethical?

ANSWER
Jonathan’s approach to his speech raises ethical questions about the responsibility of a speaker to provide substantive content. Let’s address the questions:

1. **Is it ever ethical to be devoid of content and opt instead for colorful language?**
It is generally not ethical to prioritize colorful language over substantive content in a speech. While rhetorical devices like similes, metaphors, rhythm, and alliteration can enhance a speech’s appeal and engagement, they should complement, not replace, strong arguments and meaningful content. Using language solely for its aesthetic qualities while lacking substance can be seen as deceptive and a disservice to the audience.

2. **Should language ever be a substitute for strong arguments?**
Language should never be a complete substitute for strong arguments. While effective communication involves using language skillfully to engage the audience, the core of any informative or persuasive speech should be well-structured, evidence-based arguments. Language can enhance the impact of these arguments, but it should not be used as a smokescreen to mask the absence of substantive content.

3. **If you were a friend of Jonathan’s, how would you explain to him that his behavior was unethical?**
If I were a friend of Jonathan’s, I would explain to him that his behavior was unethical by emphasizing the following points:

a. **Respect for the Audience:** I would stress that the audience’s time and attention are valuable. When they attend a speech, they expect to gain knowledge, insights, or a new perspective. Depriving them of substantive content is disrespectful and can lead to a lack of trust.

b. **Credibility:** A speaker’s credibility is vital in any presentation. Using flowery language without substantive content can damage a speaker’s credibility. Once the audience recognizes the lack of substance, they may be less likely to trust the speaker in the future.

c. **Transparency:** I would encourage Jonathan to be honest with his audience. If he feels unprepared, it’s better to acknowledge it at the beginning of the speech and explain that he aims to engage them through language while apologizing for the lack of content.

d. **Ethical Responsibility:** As a speaker, Jonathan has an ethical responsibility to provide valuable information and engage the audience in an honest and forthright manner. Prioritizing aesthetics over substance compromises this responsibility.

Ultimately, I would advise Jonathan to respect the audience’s intelligence and trust them to appreciate meaningful content over superficial linguistic devices. Ethical communication prioritizes the audience’s understanding and engagement, which is best achieved through a combination of substance and engaging language.