Why risky and amoral ‘transparency’ fails as a lone ethical concept

Abstract

Transparency is a concept frequently arising in ethics discussions but poorly conceptualized and, in some cases, even harmful. Searching outside the term’s current general popularity in media ethics and in public relations, a literature review revealed that many scholars from various disciplines have misgivings and concerns about transparency. Other professions are used to discuss the problems that arise when relying on transparency for ethical guidance. Consequentialist, virtue, and deontological ethics all object to the use of transparency as an ethical construct. Many problems emerge, based on a Kantian reading; for example, transparency does not ensure good intention; and, transparency does not equal veracity, as transparency can also be used for unethical purposes. Immanuel Kant did not discuss transparency as an a priori (reasoned from cause to effect) moral concept but awarded prima facie (on its face) moral worth to good intention (the highest form of good), dignity and respect, and duty – in a context of rational moral autonomy. Transparency is not on its own considered a moral construct but rather its use should be accorded to intention. Transparency can be used for either ethical or unethical intention - therefore the term transparency is rendered amoral (without moral status on its own) and should not be used as a lone ethical construct but must be combined with stronger concepts for more rigorous moral analyses. Transparency as a professional standard is also explored yet proved problematic across other professions from health care to AI. Ethical analyses, as added to the issues management process, is advised and discussed. The lexicon of strategic communication management should replace transparency with more meaningful terms rooted in moral philosophy and conceptually grounded for not only clearer understanding but also for enhancing organizational responsibility, ethical principle use, and ethical outcomes. Good intention, veracity, full disclosure, visibility, candor, clarity, completeness could aid precision in our ethical analyses. As a lone unqualified good, pure intention should drive veracity, disclosure, dialogue, and so on. These terms are offered in conclusion as a normative and practical alternatives (or amendments) to risky and amoral transparency. Greater acumen in our lexicon can enhance the professionalism of the field and strengthen its analyses by aligning it with the discipline and analytic of moral philosophy, using the well-examined traditions of ethics therein, and stand the field in organizational and ethical leadership with other professions.