On the ethics of translators' interventions 3

[gdh7260]

I think that it is ultimately a question of acting in good faith. There is no doubt, for example, that the public expects scientists to do their best to interpret the scientific evidence on, say, cholesterol or drug trials or climate change without trying to distort the outcomes to suit their own ends.

Exactly the same expectation applies to translators. Changing the author's intended meaning is ultimately a breach of faith with both the author and the people who read the translation.

[AnthonyPym]

Many thanks for your comment.

The ethics I am interested in is consciously regional, in this case limited to a profession; it is not general, not for all humanity.

The aim of this regional ethics is long-term benefits for all parties engaged in the communication act (i.e. not just two sides, and including the mediator). So mutual benefits for Hitler and Mussolini, for example, would make their communication professionally ethical even when it is not in the interests of many others.

[freelancer0108]

Surely your basis for ethics is fairly slim. After all, we can easily envisage a situation where a win-win for two cultures who are negotiating could cause a loss for a third culture that is not present. In your ethics, the translator should intervene for the sake of better cooperation. But if this cooperation leads to the suffering of someone else, is it still ethical? If it is not, cooperation/mutual understanding is not enough.