While reading through chapters 2 and 3, I was a bit overwhelmed by all of the information and I needed to take a break to kind of absorb all of the information. I feel like when it comes to talking about Communications and all the different definitions, sometimes it can seem like they all mean the same thing and you're just reading the same definition over and over again. But something that Arnett spoke about that seemed to stand out to me the most was the overall definition of ethics because I felt like it's something that could be easily overlooked.
Arnett describes ethics as promoting the good of searching for what is ethical while being attentive to the changes going on around us. For me this just made me think of lets say you're talking to a friend and they made a decision in their life that you don't agree with but you have to be understanding of that because everyone has something going on in their life so what they find is ethical is different then what you may find is ethical.
I also think this definition can remind you that one decision you have made might be ethical for now, but time is constantly changing so that decision isn't going to be the right one in a few years.
Hey Amina,
ReplyDeleteI like your post and feel the same way about it being overwhelming and somewhat repetitive. IT makes sense that one should search for what is "good" based on changing circumstances around us. Also, it is interesting because many of the differences in approaching communication and ethics are very minor.
Moreover, I like how you mention that what is considered to be ethical is different from one person to the next. This is a constant battle for people and is illustrated a ton in political ideologies. For example, conservatives are generally against something like abortion and may be less likely to discuss this topic whereas liberals are more open to this operation. This is a clear example of how different people view ethical behavior and speech differently.
Great post!
Hi Amina
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post, I think an important thing to add when discussing applied communications is that its very complicated. In the reading the author goes into detail about the multiplicity of communication ethics. The world we live in today is filled with many different interpretations of what communication ethics looks like, so finding one interpretation of moral communication is very challenging. People have different cultures and beliefs and this makes it challenging to find a common ground on what ethics should look like. In the except by Makau (2002) she states "So called universal principles have proven inadequate to resolution of many, if not most, "real world" moral challenges". My interpretation on this is that it's challenging for humans to set universal ethic principles when we don't share similar morals.
I loved your post especially when you talked about the different definitions of communication ethics