Here is why I want information from those three sources:

1. Industry experts and publications: As a writer, marketer and aspiring social media organizer, I like to hear from the leaders in those areas. So I follow people who tweet about public relations, online marketing, freelancing, journalism etc.

They usually share links to stories that are very relevant to my line of work, helping me develop as a professional.

2. Locals: I began by finding a few Portland-area social media marketers. Once I found the influential ones, I paid attention to who they paid attention to. Which people got re-tweeted or had conversations with the movers and shakers?

I then started having conversations with those people, went to local events and met them in person. Many of them are close to my age, which has made this an awesome networking and friend-building opportunity.

3. Entertaining people: This includes friends and minor celebrities. I follow a guy who exclusively posts famous (and not so famous) quotes. I follow the satirical newspaper The Onion and various celebrities. These people say pithy things that I find highly amusing or insightful.

The advantage over Facebook? Well, I love facebook for keeping me connected with my friends. But through Twitter I’ve been able to have conversations with people I would normally never have a chance to interact with. It just brings the world that much closer to me, and I think it’s invaluable.

Before I get sidetracked on that topic, though, here’s the piece I was reading today: The End of Philosophy, by David Brooks. I like what he had to say, from a descriptive perspective. But I look at ethics from a prescriptive stance that is, I believe, on a completely different meta-ethical track.

Essentially, his point is this: reasoned moral thinking does not typically drive moral decision-making. Brooks writes, “Moral judgments are… rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain.”

We make snap moral decisions based on intuitive judgments that are part of a value framework that has been instilled in us since we were born.  Evolution has led to “competition among groups has turned us into pretty cooperative, empathetic and altruistic creatures — at least within our families, groups and sometimes nations.”

Here’s where I have a problem. It is one thing to describe what humans do, as Brooks has done. It is quite another to draw conclusions about what humans should do, which is the essence of morality and ethical thought.

So… how does that help? Cooperation and empathy is not the only thing that got us to this evolutionary stage. In-group, tribal loyalties and fierce rejection of out-groups, the desire for power (and other related unsavory desires) and various other products of our evolutionary development have led us here, too. Brooks and other philosophers cannot say which traits are good and which are evil without assuming a value system outside of what our evolutionary past has produced.

Final point: What Brooks has to say impacts society. If we know the biological foundations for how people make moral judgments, we can try to create a culture where the tendency to behave certain ways is encouraged. But Brooks’ essay does nothing to suggest how we figure out what those behaviors should be. After all, what is the point of talking about means without knowing what ends we’re after?

The seriousness of UK law aside, I find this hilarious. It’s like something out of a nature documentary. “Thwarted for now, the Google car turns the corner and waits. When night falls, it will return.”

Sure, I’d have to give up Mom’s utterly tireless dedication to my childhood upbringing, her encouragement of curiosity and play,  her focus on teaching me to write and her outstanding patience…

And I’d probably have to do without Dad’s dry wit, hopeless determination to teach me math, and assurances that, in fact, pursuing a career in science or teaching would be a worthless idea. He loves to teach, no mistake about it, but he attempted to dissuade me from taking the same path.

But I say all of this to lament the fact that I was never brought up with a sense for business. No entrepreneurial spirit. I hadn’t the slightest concept of how business functions until about six months ago.

It’s everywhere. It applies to how sports teams are run, how universities and churches operate; how I manage and live my life. If I go back to school (and I imagine I will) I will take a whole new perspective on how to graduate as a very accomplished individual. If I have children (and that takes a bit more imagination) I will take intentional opportunities to kindle the sort of business spirit I never experienced as a kid. Plus, of course, a sense of fun to go with it :)

Ask yourself: would you like to be leveraged? Probably not. You probably would prefer not to be a means to an end. What’s in it for you? You probably don’t want to be a revenue spike or another tool in the marketing arsenal.

At least, that’s the way I look at it. Maybe it’s part of being Gen Y, but I think people want to be valued as more than a consumer.

Several people are quoted in the article with other ideas, so I recommend reading it.

As it turns out, I am employed as a marketer for a company that helps other companies be more ethical. In a sense, I market ethics. And I make every effort to do so ethically.

Of course, the day after I decided to write this post, Seth Godin wrote about the topic (Congratulations on 3,000 blog posts, by the way). He basically set the record straight: Marketing is a tool that can be used for good or evil.

Just like every powerful tool, the impact comes from the craftsman, not the tool.

It’s the same with ‘rhetoric’ and ‘propaganda.’ Each has received a negative connotation because of what unethical people do with them. If you look in the dictionary, you’ll find that the traditional definitions are not exactly evil.

I’m lucky in one sense: I just can’t make myself sell something I don’t believe in. I can’t do it. I’ve tried and I burned out very quickly. So, I try to apply all of my personal integrity to my marketing efforts, and even if it’s not the most efficient way of doing things, at least it’s honest. I can live with that.

Yes, I’m concerned with ethics and I’m in marketing. I honestly believe that marketing will have to become more personal to be successful. It’s easier on the conscience and increasingly pragmatic. As with any personal relationship, integrity is a crucial factor in building trust, and trust sells.

But first, let me apologize for using the term ‘monkey business’ in the title, and especially for using it in context of a chimp. Every child should have learned the basic differences between those primates.

Digression aside, and with the understanding that I’m a white guy, I think people have overreacted. But that’s the thing about rhetoric: communication is a two-way beast. The meaning you convey is the meaning people take from what you say. My rhetoric professor would ask “Am I making meaning with you?” because it’s so damn important to be sensitive to the listener. Otherwise the failure is on you.

In this case, the crazy chimp story came to mind quickly, so I ‘got’ the joke. Others didn’t. So in my opinion the cartoonist drew something rather lame and violent, the editorial staff made a judgment call on how people would react, and some people reacted defensively. While I didn’t receive the same message that others received, communication works that way – and publications like the Post are supposed to communicate effectively. It created a mess, but one thing’s for sure – it created a hell of a lot of publicity.

Unless, that is, he is trying to be colloquial. I’d still argue that he loses credibility with his target audience. His audience is looking for a writing expert. I’m all for breaking the rules, don’t get me wrong, but breaking rules is an intentional device for getting a message across. Stumbling (or even appearing to stumble) over them sends an entirely different message.

But anyway, I like how the article illustrates the age-old idea that ‘practice makes perfect.’ I think business ethics probably works the same way. Ethical behavior takes some practice to master – every time you think to yourself ‘oh, I didn’t think he’d react that way,’ or ‘I shouldn’t have told her that,’ you learn a little bit more about other perspectives on situations. And I think that’s important to developing an ethical character for yourself.

The more you can relate to others, the more they seem like you. And you definitely want to treat yourself well. Thus, the more you can relate to others, the better you’ll treat them. I don’t actually have much to back up that theory – does it make sense to anybody else?