Blog post 3

 In chapter 2, Arnett discusses the "multiplicity of oughts" (Arnett et al. 44). Similar to the "multiplicity of goods", the "multiplicity of oughts" suggests that there may be multiple ways that one should act. How we "ought" to do things may be perceived as incorrect to one person, while remaining correct to another. This is why discussing communication ethics proves to be difficult. One central idea that someone may value protecting in their views of "ethical" may not even land on the same spectrum as how another defines "ethical". It is important to understand that when we do attempt to keep something ethical, we have to question what "ethical" really is, and what topics we deem of value in this definition. This is very similar to the "multiplicity of goods" we discussed in class because it is all about how different people perceive the world. There is no true "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil", "ethical" or "unethical", rather, there is a spectrum of how we, as humans, decide to interpret the world around us. 

One way that this connects to my life is represented by a current situation that I am in. Recently, I moved in with my girlfriend and we discussed potentially getting a dog. I really want a dog because I know that it will make me happy, and I would love to have one to hang out with in the apartment. My girlfriend, on the other hand, thinks that getting a dog would be a lot of work. In this scenario, there is a "multiplicity of oughts", I think that we ought to get a dog, she thinks that we should not. Looking back on this, I can now realize how neither one of us was "right" or "wrong" and there is no clear answer of what we "ought" to do. While having a dog would be a lot of fun, I can also see how it would be a lot more work for the both of us. I did not realize this before reading this chapter of the textbook. However, now that I know the spectrum of "oughts" surrounding this topic, I will be sure to analyze how all parties feel about the scenario before I jump on a decision of what we "ought" to do.