Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate. Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme.     Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II

Ethics is one of the most important topics in technical communication. When you can communicate clearly and effectively, and when it is your task to help others to understand an object, process, or procedure, it is your responsibility to do so in an ethical fashion.

After all, good writing isn’t just grammatically correct, or even functional. As Zuidema and Bush state, “If we define good writing simply as writing that gets the audience to  do or think what the writer wants, we fail to take into consideration the needs or well-being of the audience, and we ignore the ways in which writing may hurt others or cause harm” (Zuidema and Bush 95). But what does it mean to communicate ethically with regard to technical communication? There is a lot of confusion regarding what “ethics” means, and when you drill down to what ethical technical communication means, the answer becomes very complicated.

We might think asking someone if he or she is an ethical person is the same as asking someone if he or she is a good person. Certainly, my Aunt Maudie, who always held herself to be the definitive judge of whether someone was a good person or not, would tell you that a good person does what he or she feels is right in his or her heart.   But the human heart can be very complicated.   If you find a dollar on the floor, what is the right thing to do?

• run around asking anyone if he or she lost a dollar? What if the person who says “yes” is lying and didn’t lose the dollar? Was it right, then, to give the dollar to him or her? What about the person who really lost the dollar? How do you know?
• turn the dollar into lost and found?
• keep the dollar, with the rationalization that you probably lost a dollar in the past, and this is just karma returning that dollar to you?
• give the dollar to charity with the rationalization that by doing so, at least you know it will do some good?

Any of these potential answers might feel right in your heart. Such a criterion really isn’t the best to use to judge more complex ethical problems such as you might find in technical communication situations.

Also, note all of these potential answers are legal. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical. In the past, in the United States, it was legal for health care insurance companies to deny coverage to persons who had health problems. That is, if a person had a heart attack and did not have insurance, then he or she would not be able to purchase insurance afterward, even though it was clear that he or she would not be able to afford health care without health insurance. Such a practice was common and legal, but it was not at all ethical to deny sick persons the ability to afford the health care they needed.