Moral and ethical dimension of politics and power. Political beliefs: how we are manipulated, but we believe

A few months ago, the world of politics and technology was shocked when it became known that the British company Cambridge Analytica was inappropriately using data extracted from a harmless quiz on Facebook to create user profiles and redirect the widest possible audience to the platform with persuasive advertising. visitors vote in a certain way. Only some of this information was obtained with the consent of users (first violation), while the information obtained was stored by the application developer (second violation) and was sold to Cambridge Analytica in violation of the terms of use of the information (third outrage).

This is an example of a typical scam in the vein of cybercriminals, also known as "Black Hats" - the fraudulent use of persuasion tactics combined with the unethical use of personal data.

On the other hand, the last time you ordered something online, you may have noticed the use of several interface design elements to entice you to purchase (“last viewed item,” “3 views in last day”). Although these design techniques are used to persuade users, they are usually not fraudulent and are considered "ethical hacking" techniques (as practiced by cybersecurity specialists and other good people known as "White Hats").

Another example: at the 2018 Google I/O conference in the summer, Google's artificial intelligence system, Duplex, called into a salon to set up a meeting and had a casual conversation, imitating human manners so well that the interlocutor on the other end of the line did not realize that he was talking with a car. The computer system did not represent itself as a person, but it did not identify itself as a machine, which, in the conditional range between black and white, places it in a gray space. What will prevent such technology from being used to develop cybercrimes in the near future?

On one side of the practice of persuasion there are “white hat” techniques, which are characterized by openness, choice, transparency, mutual benefit, on the opposite pole - “black hat” techniques with their inherent secrecy, coercion, deception, self-interest.

As you can see from the examples above, the use of persuasion tactics can be placed anywhere on the spectrum from “black hats” at one extreme to “white hats” at the other, separated by a large, fuzzy “gray” region. In today's world of online scams, phishing attacks, and data breaches, users are increasingly wary of persuasion tactics that are not in their best interest. User experience developers, designers, and programmers are responsible for decisions related to the ethical nature of the tactics used in their projects.

This post will provide a brief history of how psychological tactics are used in conjunction with high technology and new media, and provides food for thought that can help designers and developers avoid crossing the fine ethical line into the dark side.

History of Persuasion

Tactics and methods of persuasion are hardly new; they have been used for centuries. The work of the ancient Greek thinker Aristotle “Rhetoric”, which was published more than 2000 years ago, is one of the most early works dedicated to the art of persuasion. In it, Aristotle presented the following methods of persuasion: it with(confidence), logo(reason) and pathos(emotion). The philosopher also considered how kairos(appropriate time) is important for the application of the mentioned methods of persuasion.

Fast forward to today and pay attention to the methods of persuasion used around us - in advertising, marketing, and communications. When we try to convince someone of our point of view or to win a design competition with our design, we are most likely using persuasion: a process in which a person's attitude or behavior is - without coercion - influenced by other people.

Although Aristotle was the first to document the existence of the phenomenon of persuasion, the book most often cited in this context today is Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. According to the author, there are 6 key principles of persuasion:

1. Reciprocity. People feel obligated to give something in return in return for receiving something.

2. Scarcity. People want more of the things they have less of.

4. Consistency. People like to live up to what they have said or done before.

5. Sympathy. People prefer to say yes to those they like.

6. Consensus (social proof). People - especially when they are unsure about something - will look at the behavior of others to determine their own actions.

We have all been exposed to one or more of these principles at one time or another and can recognize them in advertising or in our normal daily interactions with others. Despite the fact that the art of persuasion has existed for centuries, today a new aspect has appeared in it - the use of persuasion methods from the point of view of new technologies and means. mass media. This trend arose simultaneously with the first personal computers, intensified with the advent of the Internet and became dominant in the era of the pervasive spread of mobile devices.

Persuasion through technology and new media

A human behavior specialist, American psychologist B. J. Fogg is a pioneer in research on the role of technology in persuasion. Over two decades, he began studying the intersections between persuasion and computer technology. His research interests included interactive technologies, such as websites, software and devices, designed to change people's attitudes or behavior.

He called this industry captology(Captology; an acronym derived from the phrase Computers as persuasive technologies- “computers as persuasive technologies”). Based on his research, B. J. Fogg wrote the book Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do.

Captology as a science describes the shaded area where computing technology and persuasion intersect with each other (the area of computers - Computers - includes video games, handheld computers, CDs with recorded data, electronic organizers, exercise equipment and employees; the area of persuasion - Persuasion - includes : behavior change, motivation, attitude change, compliance and attitude change).

Interactive technologies have many advantages over traditional media because they allow interaction. They also have an advantage over humans because they can be more persistent (for example, constantly reminding them to update software), offer anonymity (great for sensitive topics), can receive and process large amounts of data (e.g. Amazon recommendations), can use many styles and modes (text, graphics, audio, video, animation, simulations), can scale easily and spread unhindered.

This last advantage today is expressed even more clearly than all others, because Cell phones are becoming literally extensions of our hands, and there is an unstoppable proliferation of smart devices, embedded computing, the Internet of Things, wearable technologies, virtual reality and virtual assistants being embedded into anything and anywhere around us. Additionally, today's technological advancements allow us to choose the timing and location of highly effective persuasion as it is now easy to know the user's location, context, current activity and empower them to take action. This could be a reminder from your “smart watch” that it’s time for you to stop or, conversely, go somewhere, or an offer sent to your smartphone to visit a cafe when you are approaching this establishment at a distance of several blocks.

Ethics in the era of new technologies and interactive media

The use of persuasion in traditional media over the past decades has raised questions regarding the ethics of such practices. With the proliferation of new media and pervasive technologies, even more questions arise about the ethical use of persuasive techniques. Some of these issues are driven by the advantages of new technologies over traditional means media and people. Anyone who uses persuasion to change people's attitudes or behavior must have a full understanding of the ethical implications and impact of their work.

One of the key responsibilities of a designer during any design process is to act as a voice for the user. This role becomes even more important when persuasion techniques are deliberately used in design, since users may not be aware of the persuasion tactics involved. Even worse, some users may simply not recognize these tactics, as may be the case with children, the elderly, or other vulnerable users.
B. J. Fogg describes 6 factors that give interactive technologies an edge over users when it comes to persuasion:

1. The intent to persuade is masked by novelty.

Internet and Email are no longer new, and most of us have learned to spot scam web practices and fraudulent promises, but we still find newness in fresh mobile apps, voice interfaces, augmented and virtual realities. The recent craze for the mobile game Pokémon Go has raised many ethical questions.

2. Knownly positive reputation of the new technology

While the phrase “It must be true, I saw it on the Internet” now sounds like a deadly irony, users are still susceptible to persuasion through likes, comments, link sharing, retweets, challenge sharing, fake news or viral content.

3. Limitless persistence

Would you like a used car salesman to constantly follow you around after your first visit, trying to sell you a car? Although, fortunately, this does not happen in real life, your gadgets and applications are constantly with you, able to use beeps and flashing displays to try to convince us of something, even where and when it is absolutely unacceptable.

4. Third party control over how the interaction unfolds

Unlike the situation of “human” persuasion, when the individual who is being persuaded is able to react and change the course of interaction, technology has in advance installed options communications that are controlled by designers and developers. When designing, creators must determine what they can do at their level of competency, and for everything else, they have a “Sorry, I can't help you with that” response. Just last month one of social networks blocked access to its mobile website by asking users to install an app to receive content but not providing an option to opt out of installing it.

5. The ability to influence emotions without experiencing them yourself

New technologies have no emotions. Even with recent advances in artificial intelligence, machines—unlike humans—do not experience emotions. Let's return to the phone call from Google's Duplex digital assistant mentioned at the beginning of the post: problems can arise when people do not know that the voice on the other end of the line belongs to an emotionless machine, and treat it as another person like themselves .

6. Lack of responsibility for the negative consequences of belief

What happens when something goes wrong and the application or technology can't take responsibility? Do developers take responsibility even if their persuasion strategies produce unpredictable results or are misused by their partners? But Mark Zuckerberg, during congressional hearings, accepted responsibility for the scandal caused by the actions of Cambridge Analytica.

With all these unfair advantages at their disposal, how can designers and developers make ethical choices in their designs and decisions? The first step is to step back and consider the ethical implications and impact of your work, and then look at it from the users' point of view.

Many developers are looking to the past and are vocal about some of the ethically questionable features of tech products and design. Among them is Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google, who spoke about how tech company products are taking over the minds of users. Sean Parker, founder of Napster and ex-president Facebook, explained how Facebook was designed to exploit human "vulnerabilities." Jonas Downey from Basecamp shared his thoughts on the fact that most software products are owned and controlled by corporations whose business interests often conflict with the interests of users.

Developer Code of Conduct

The American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA), the largest professional organization in the design field, publishes the Design Business and Ethics document series. The author of Design Professionalism, Andy Rutledge, also created a professional code of conduct. Both sources are very detailed and cover the business side of design, but do not address the specific ethics associated with design that has a direct impact or influence on human behavior.

Other professionals who influence the human mind have their own ethical principles and codes of conduct, similar to those formulated by the American Psychological Association and the British Psychological Society. The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect members of societies, as well as the reputation of psychologists and psychologists themselves. Designers and developers who use psychology in their designs could explore how the ethical principles of psychologists apply to own work designers.

Principles and issues

Using the ethical principles of psychologists as a framework, it is possible to determine how each principle applies to persuasive design and the listed issues related to the ethical implications of design. They are by no means exhaustive, but are intended to provide food for thought in each of these areas.

Principle A: Benevolence and Harmlessness

Cause no harm. Your products can influence the minds, behavior and lives of your users and the people around them, so be vigilant and beware of abuse of influence.

Does your product change the way people interact for the better?
Does your product have the goal of getting users to spend more time than they intended?
Does your product make it easier to access socially unacceptable or illegal goods that would not otherwise be readily available to your users?
How could your partners or bad guys abuse your product without your knowledge?
Would you be comfortable with someone else applying your product to yourself?
Would you like someone else to use this product to convince your mother or child?

Principle B: commitment and responsibility

Remember your responsibilities to your intended users, unintended users, and society at large. Take proper responsibility for results.

During product development, look for answers to the question “How can we [do this]?”, alternating it with another question: “At what price?”
What is the impact of your product/solution? Who or what does it replace or influence?
If your product was used contrary to its intended purpose, what might be its impact?
Does your product change social norms, etiquette or traditions for the better?
Will your product put users in danger or make them vulnerable, intentionally or unintentionally (studies have found that the Pokémon GO app has caused over 100,000 traffic accidents)? How can this be prevented?

Principle B: Integrity

Promote authenticity, honesty and truthfulness in your product. Do not deceive, mislead, or commit fraud. When deception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefit and minimize harm, carefully consider whether it is necessary, consider all possible consequences, and take responsibility for eliminating any suspicion that may arise from the use of such methods.

Do you need user consent? When asked about consent, do they know what exactly they are agreeing to?
What is the purpose of the product? Is it in the best interest of the user or the developer? Are you open and transparent about your intentions?
Does your product use deception, manipulation, distortion, threats, coercion or other dishonest methods?
Are your users aware that their activities are being tracked, or is this information hidden from them?
Does your product benefit you or the developers at the expense of your users?
What will a future “whistleblower” say about you and your product?

Principle D: fairness

Use reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that your potential biases and limitations of experience do not lead to or condone unlawful practices. Your product should provide value to both developers and users.

Are there any biases (gender, political, or other) influencing your product?
Does your product support hatred, violence, crime, propaganda?
If you did this in person, without technology, would it be considered ethical?
What are the benefits for developers/businesses? What are the benefits for users? Are the benefits stacked in favor of the business?
Can you just mute users? Do users have control and the ability to refuse a service without being further persuaded through other channels?

Principle E: Respect the rights and dignity of others

Respect the dignity and worth of every human person, as well as the rights of individuals to privacy and confidentiality. Special safeguards may be required to protect the rights and welfare of vulnerable users.

Does your product use tactics to persuade potentially vulnerable users (children, the elderly, the poor)?
Does your product protect users' privacy and give them control over their settings?
Does the product require unnecessary permissions to operate?
Could your product use less intrusive techniques to achieve similar results? (for example, speed control on roads instead of surveillance)
Does your product make your users a nuisance to others? How can you prevent this?

Conclusion

If you develop your products using white hat techniques, you may appreciate the ethical issues raised in this post. However, if you are designing in a gray or dark area, thank you for reading this article to the end. Perhaps you will see how much responsibility developers and designers have for their users - and reconsider your strategy.

Do good. Do no harm. Design with an ethical perspective.

How to properly manage the finances of your business if you are not an expert in the field financial analysis - The financial analysis

Financial management - financial relations between entities, financial management at different levels, securities portfolio management, traffic management techniques financial resources- this is not a complete list of the subject" Financial management"

Let's talk about what it is coaching? Some believe that this is a bourgeois brand, others that it is a breakthrough in modern business. Coaching is a set of rules for successfully running a business, as well as the ability to correctly manage these rules

Ethics of Conviction and Ethics of Responsibility

must responsible

But also for the Old Testament

for people, but also created people

weak consequentialism. any

Maybe,

All monos fronein, monos fronein

However, it happens that a situation requires immediate action and subsequent prosecution of the offender is not enough. Sometimes, in order to stop the encroachment, it is necessary to use violence. The prophet Micah writes that people will “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.”, and the prophet Joel writes “beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears”. We are obliged to follow the covenant of the prophet Micah, but in a world where not everyone honors and fulfills it, at times we have to act in accordance with the covenant of the prophet Joel. Using Max Weber's concepts of the ethics of persuasion and the ethics of responsibility, we can say that in general ethics beliefs prescribe to act in accordance with the covenant of Micah, and the ethics of responsibility calls in certain cases to follow the covenant of Joel. Weber writes that, according to the ethics of persuasion, force cannot be opposed to evil, and according to the ethics of responsibility: “you must to forcibly resist evil, otherwise evil will prevail, responsible You". Weber elaborates on this idea:

This ethic of persuasion is characteristic not only of the New, but also for the Old Testament. In short, it is about living a perfectly righteous life and leaving the rest to the Lord. Kant is perhaps the most prominent representative of this view in the modern era. According to this doctrine, the moral principles of each person have absolute force and, for example, even in the name of saving the life of another person, it is impermissible to sacrifice them and lie. Full acceptance of the ethics of persuasion seems to be the safest position - one can always plead that one firmly adhered to morality, but oneself became a victim of circumstances. The simplest way out can often be to follow the dictates of conscience, the norms that a person has set for himself. However, the simplest is not always the best. Is it always right, when choosing between peace of mind, a clear conscience and the suffering of another, to give preference to the first? Don't think. The ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility are not absolute antagonists, but complement each other, and sometimes the ethics of conviction must give way to the priority of responsibility. Then a problem arises before us - we can make a mistake, commit evil, unfairly causing suffering to others that cannot be justified. Weber continues:

There are no “moral algorithms” that would accurately indicate to us when the ethics of persuasion should recede into the background and what specific means are permissible in the case when it has receded. There is no other authority here other than the application of moral criteria. This moral approach sometimes betrays us - and then we ourselves become champions of evil, regardless of how good our intentions were. One should be guided by the following general rule: the ethics of conviction can be relegated to the background only when necessary to prevent other evils, and not in order to embody the ideals of good. This will protect you from committing idealistic evil - as happened in the twentieth century in totalitarian states. Moreover, the evil must be so flagrant as to justify the means employed to curb it, and all other possible methods have already been tried.

Assessments, say, on the issue of the status of human rights, given from the standpoint of the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility, may differ. Human rights are not something imposed on oppressed people against their will. Confrontation begins when the authorities refuse to respect these rights, while the people want to have them. Human rights emerged as a normative response to violence, persecution and oppression, drawn from experience. They exist not only for people, but also created people those. are a product of history and should not be considered immutable and immutable. However, I believe that in normal practice they should be absolutely accepted, i.e. they must be observed, even if this complicates the achievement of some good or prevents the suppression of evil. It is possible not to accept their priority only if they are incompatible with any other rights that we, judging sensibly, consider more significant.

The ethics of responsibility, in my opinion, should be accepted as weak consequentialism. The difference between strong and weak consequentialism is that, according to strong consequentialism, we any case are obliged to maximize generally good consequences, while according to the weak case, there is no certain category of situations whose consequences cannot influence the determination of what is right. In most cases, weak consequentialism is consistent with the ethics of persuasion, but weak consequentialism suggests that situations may arise whose consequences are greater than, say, the failure to respect individual rights.

In many situations, it is not easy to know what the lesser evil really is. In such situations and in situations where the consequences of actions are very unclear, we must follow the ethics of persuasion. However, when it is clear to us that we will have to choose between two evils, one of which is significant, we are obliged to choose the lesser evil. Maybe, that it is right to violate individual rights if it prevents disaster. The paradox of dirty hands is that sometimes we have to do the wrong thing in order to do the right thing. However, by choosing the lesser of two evils, we are not committing an immoral act. On the other hand, we are responsible for the lesser evil and subsequently have an obligation to do everything possible to correct the evil committed.

Allactions have a more or less shaky foundation. We can never know for sure about all the circumstances and possible consequences our actions. The best intentions can have the most horrifying consequences. As a result of the choices we make and circumstances beyond our control, we can cause terrible harm to others. There is no absolute supreme authority dictating ethical beliefs every time correct solution, because, as mentioned above, there is no moral algorithm. Universalization processes can guide us, but they are not ideal because they do not take into account actions that clearly correspond to established order, and include those that do not match. The essence of this was clearly formulated by Hegel, who criticized Kant’s categorical imperative, believing that such abstract formalism leads to the fact that any maxim can be made a universal law. In addition, if the attitude to a specific situation is uncertain, universalization can only help us with very general rules. Hegel argues that since the categorical imperative presupposes the separation of the universal and the individual, and only the universal can be the source of moral judgments, such ethics cannot play a significant role in practical life, where we encounter specific situations. The categorical imperative cannot accommodate the particular that is present in each individual case and therefore remains aside. When a particular situation is abstracted into the general, it changes beyond recognition. We can't do without application of moral criteria, which we must follow, taking into account the opinions of other people. In Sophocles' Antigone, Haemon urges his father Creon not to act. monos fronein, those. do not make a single decision without listening to what other people say. Refuse monos fronein means adhering to the main principle of democracy: moral and political issues should be discussed publicly. During such discussions, we will sometimes decide to use the violence necessary to defeat evil.

Public relations professionals are, by definition, advocates for clients and employers. The focus of their work is on persuasive communication to influence a specific audience in some way. At the same time, as noted in Chap. 3, Public relations practitioners must conduct their activities ethically.

The use of persuasive techniques therefore requires some additional guidelines. Professor Richard L. Johannesen of Northern Illinois University (Northern Illinois University) Charles Larson's book Persuasion, Reception and Responsibility lists the following ethical criteria for the use of persuasive tools that every public relations professional should consider in their work:

1. Do not use false, fabricated, misrepresented, distorted, or irrelevant data to support your arguments or claims.

2. Do not deliberately use deceptive, unsupported, or illogical argumentation.

3. Don’t pretend to be knowledgeable or an “expert” on anything that you are not.

4. Do not use inappropriate appeals to divert attention or scrutiny from the issue under consideration. Addresses that typically serve this purpose include dirty attacks on an opponent's character, calls for hatred and bigotry, attacks, and terms like "God" and "devil" that evoke strong but unconscious positive or negative reactions.

5. Don't ask your audience to associate your idea or proposal with emotionally charged values, motives or goals with which they are not really connected.

6. Don't deceive your audience by hiding your true purpose, personal interest, the group you represent, or your position as an advocate of a point of view.

7. The number, magnitude, intensity or undesirable characteristics of consequences must not be distorted, hidden or misrepresented.

8. Do not use emotive appeals that lack support from data or argument, or that would not be accepted if the audience had the time and opportunity to study the subject itself.

9. Don’t oversimplify complex situations or reduce them to polar, two-dimensional, either/or views or choices.

10. Do not create the impression of certainty where hypotheticality and degrees of probability would be more accurate.

11. Do not take the side of what you yourself do not believe in.

It is clear from the preceding list that a public relations professional must be more than just a technician or a “hire-for-hire.” This finding raises the issue that public relations professionals often lack the technical and legal competence to know what information a client or employer provides to them is accurate.

Richard Heath explains that this does not absolve public relations professionals of ethical responsibility. He writes: “The problem of communicating information that they cannot personally confirm does not relieve them of their responsibility as a communicator. It is their responsibility to ensure that the most accurate information is provided and that it is assessed in the best possible way.”

Persuasive messages require truth, honesty, and sincerity for two practical reasons. First, Heath says the report is already suspect because it is being made on behalf of a client or organization. Second, half-truths and misleading information do not serve the public or the organization.

The perpetrators must be punished. Francois de La Rochefoucauld emphasizes that we can do good to our neighbors only if they believe that they cannot harm us with impunity. We cannot leave unpunished the evil committed against us, but also the evil committed against other people. Whether we are talking about crimes committed in peacetime or war crimes, we have a responsibility to hold the alleged perpetrators accountable. The main reason why we should do this, in my opinion, is the right of the victim to have universal recognition of the injustice that has taken place in relation to him, and, if possible, justice should be restored. In addition, the criminal himself has the right to be included in a community where moral laws apply, and this presupposes the need to answer for the crime committed. I believe that this is more important than the possible preventive component of punishment, which, perhaps, is implemented for the individual and society as a whole. In other words, for me justice is more important than practical benefit.

The purpose of international military tribunals is to hold people accountable for crimes. individual and not to demonize an entire people, to show individual, not collective guilt. The demonization of an entire group reinforces the opposition between “us” and “them,” and it is this opposition, as emphasized above, that is one of the reasons for the persecution of innocent people. International military tribunals implement a fundamental principle of international law, a principle that takes us back to 1648, to the Treaty of Westphalia - international law should reflect the interests of sovereign states, each of which “minds its own business”, so long as another country does not violate their territorial value . By putting on trial the soldiers, officials and leaders of another state, we embody the idea of sovereignty, since we treat these people as individuals who must appear before an international tribunal.

Ethics of Conviction and Ethics of Responsibility

However, it happens that a situation requires immediate action and subsequent prosecution of the offender is not enough. Sometimes, in order to stop the encroachment, it is necessary to use violence. The prophet Micah writes that people “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks,” and the prophet Joel writes “beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.” We are obliged to follow the covenant of the prophet Micah, but in a world where not everyone honors and fulfills it, at times we have to act in accordance with the covenant of the prophet Joel. Using Max Weber's concepts of the ethics of persuasion and the ethics of responsibility, we can say that in general the ethics of persuasion prescribes acting in accordance with the covenant of Micah, and the ethics of responsibility calls for following the covenant of Joel in individual cases. Weber writes that, according to the ethics of persuasion, force cannot be opposed to evil, and according to the ethics of responsibility: “you must to forcibly resist evil, otherwise evil will prevail, responsible You". Weber elaborates on this idea:

We must understand that any ethically oriented action can be subject to two fundamentally different, irreconcilably opposed maxims: it can be oriented either to an “ethics of conviction” or to an “ethics of responsibility.” Not in the sense that the ethics of conviction would be identical to irresponsibility, and the ethics of responsibility would be identical to unprincipledness. Of course, there is no question of this. But the deepest opposition exists between whether one acts according to the maxim of the ethics of conviction - in the language of religion: “A Christian does what he should, and for the result he trusts in God,” or whether one acts according to the maxim of the ethics of responsibility: one must pay for the (foreseeable) consequences of one’s actions .

This ethic of conviction is characteristic not only of the New Testament, but also of the Old Testament. In short, it is about living a perfectly righteous life and leaving the rest to the Lord. Kant is perhaps the most prominent representative of this view in the modern era. According to this doctrine, the moral principles of each person have absolute force and, for example, even in the name of saving the life of another person, it is impermissible to sacrifice them and lie. Full acceptance of the ethics of persuasion seems to be the safest position - one can always plead that one firmly adhered to morality, but oneself became a victim of circumstances. The simplest way out can often be to follow the dictates of conscience, the norms that a person has set for himself. However, the simplest is not always the best. Is it always right, when choosing between peace of mind, a clear conscience and the suffering of another, to give preference to the first? Don't think. The ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility are not absolute antagonists, but complement each other, and sometimes the ethics of conviction must give way to the priority of responsibility. Then a problem arises before us - we can make a mistake, commit evil, unfairly causing suffering to others that cannot be justified. Weber continues:

Not a single ethics in the world avoids the fact that the achievement of “good” goals in many cases is associated with the need to come to terms with the use of morally dubious or at least dangerous means, and with the possibility or even probability of bad side effects; and not a single ethics in the world can say when and to what extent an ethically positive goal “sanctifies” ethically dangerous means and side effects .

There are no “moral algorithms” that would accurately indicate to us when the ethics of persuasion should recede into the background and what specific means are permissible in the case when it has receded. There is no other authority here other than the application of moral criteria. This moral approach sometimes betrays us - and then we ourselves become champions of evil, regardless of how good our intentions were. Please be guided by the following general rule- the ethics of conviction can be relegated to the background only when necessary to prevent other evils, and not in order to embody the ideals of good. This will protect you from committing idealistic evil - as happened in the twentieth century in totalitarian states. Moreover, the evil must be so flagrant as to justify the means employed to curb it, and all other possible methods have already been tried.

The US election race has highlighted Donald Trump's amazing ability to express his political beliefs through certain techniques and rules. The real President of the United States is a charismatic leader with the ability to influence the masses.

Fear. “There is a lot of hatred towards Americans among Muslims, 25% agree that violence against Americans is justified, Sharia law recognizes killings among non-believers, beheadings, and it will only get worse!” - Trump said in one of his speeches. Thus, he used fear as one of his strongest emotions. It draws attention to what frightens and blocks more meaningful thinking.

Because living in fear is unpleasant, fear quickly turns into anger. Trump makes sure that other rapists, the source of anger - outsiders, those that did not influence the voting process. These intimidation tactics make people vulnerable, but the president promises to restore a sense of security to every citizen.

Sense of humor. When he loses in a debate, he makes jokes. People can't get angry at someone who makes them laugh uncontrollably.
Statistics. Trump cites research results, ratings as evidence, and says what he is better at than many others; the statistics themselves do not always correspond to reality, but they allow him to confirm his own views.
He presents himself as a winner. “The things I’m good at: people love me, respect what I say.” He says that no one can protect the US population except him. He presents himself as a strong leader. Donald promises total dominance, promises to win in every area always, guaranteed.
Acts arrogantly. This allows you to convince people of your superiority over others.

Technique of political persuasion V.V. Putin

Political beliefs Putin are based on several basic rules. Vladimir Vladimirovich during public speaking uses extremely clear and dynamic movements and gestures, and he builds his speech on the principles of logic, backing it up with facts. The President of Russia always proves himself to be a tactful interlocutor:

empathizes, listens and encourages the interlocutor to talk about himself;
makes another person feel significance and superiority in a certain area, doing it with the utmost sincerity;
shows real interest in him;
remembers the opponent’s first, last and patronymic names;
does not use unfamiliar words and jargon in speech.

Such dialogue tactics can be observed at the annual Presidential Direct Line. In some cases, the president uses the common lexical figure “yes, but”; it allows, with apparent agreement with the views of the interlocutor, to tactfully refute or question his position.

Methods of promoting political beliefs

The consciousness of people is controlled by mass communication, propaganda and the process of persuasion are a well-oiled mechanism. Due to the lack of individuality in people, methods of controlling them are universal. Methods of political regulation include persuasion and coercion; they are carried out in the following ways:

The "40 to 60" method. Its essence lies in the creation of media that publish information in the interests of the opposition. Having gradually gained the trust of the audience, journalists begin to periodically post misinformation, which is automatically perceived by readers or viewers as truthful. This method of propaganda is quite effective, since it is “declassified” by people in rare cases.
Sacrifice. The method is to find a victim, whose role in the political space can be an entire state, with several others uniting against it. In this case, even racist beliefs can be promoted.
False quotes. The way to manipulate mass consciousness is to attribute politician those phrases and words that the person did not utter.
Big lie. It is usually used in emergency situations, for example, to mobilize the forces of people in military conflicts. The disadvantage of this method is the rapid verification of the accuracy of information from people interested in politics.
A game of contrasts. It is against the background of contrasts that the policies of figures from different times are compared. But society tends to progress, moreover, each new generation becomes slightly better than the previous one, as a result of which living conditions also improve.
"My guys." In this case, linguistic means of expressing conviction in political discourse are used. The purpose of this method is the desire to establish trust with the target audience, as with like-minded people, on the basis that the speaker, his ideas, proposals, statements are correct, since they belong to the common people.
"The method of negative assignment groups." This method consists of creating the illusion of elitism among people belonging to a certain party, for example. Every person wants to feel important, special, different from others.
"Promotion through mediators." Propaganda of political views in this case is carried out through public figures, famous people, actors, singers.
Distraction. Its essence lies in diverting the attention of citizens from real social problems, keeping them captive to questions that have no real meaning.

Each of the above methods has an impact on people. Depending on the target audience, the method of influence is selected.

How are pacifist beliefs promoted?

Pacifist beliefs are propagated through rallies and strikes. Pacifists oppose war in any form. In modern times, pacifist beliefs are spreading regarding the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Prominent representatives of pacifism at one time were Leo Tolstoy, Bob Marley, John Lennon, Brigitte Bardot, Muhammad Ali and others.

Pacifists convince others that conflicts should be resolved in a loyal and tolerant way. Pacifists consider war stupid, a relic of the past.

The benefits and harms of political beliefs

The ethics of persuasion characterizes politics as a means of regulating public opinion and sentiment. Political propaganda does not always need to be viewed from a negative point of view. Often, political beliefs convey reliable information; certain methods of attracting attention are used to convey it to the target audience.

The benefits of political beliefs:

informing citizens about a particular political situation;
campaigning in favor of a particular political figure;
promoting someone's interests;
formation of public opinion.

Harm of political beliefs:

possible misinformation of citizens;
negative propaganda;
instillation of false attitudes.

Peculiarities of perception of different people

In view of individual characteristics people, several types of information perception are determined. Everyone knows that men are visual learners and women are auditory learners. Therefore, men better perceive political information from television screens by watching programs on such topics, while women only need to listen to this kind of message.

A man grasps and evaluates the situation as a whole, but for women the little things are important. In the perception of beliefs, women tend to exaggerate their significance, and men tend to underestimate them.

Depending on age, information from one information channel can be perceived as reliable or false. For example, young people will not question the authenticity of a political message published on a website where they are used to getting news, but older people may not believe this information; for them, a more significant source of information is television or a newspaper.

Knowledge of how to disseminate information, find your target audience and using persuasion techniques are important for a happy and successful life. A person interested in new information, studying various biographies, documents and important materials more knowledgeable and confident in himself and his views. To broaden your horizons and your competence, it is important to communicate with interesting, enthusiastic people, study the biographies of historical figures and successful people, and learn from their experience.