Critique of the classical theory of situational ethics in U.S. public relations

Abstract

This article critiques the classical situational theory of ethics, the dominant moral value in the decision-making process of U.S. public relations. It argues that the state of ethics in public relations is more a consequence of practitioners' perfunctory adherence to the three motifs of situationism—“agapeic” love (a social attitude), human welfare, happiness—than of their preference for the theory of situational ethics in its classical context. These three motifs, taken together, reflect the dominant values of a dialogic, two-way symmetrical public relations. Consequently, this article suggests that practitioners' decisions be guided by these motifs, while applying simultaneously time-honored classical ethical theories to predict and justify the ethics of their organizations' strategic decisions.