Intertwinement of Protection and Multiplicity of Goods

While reading through this chapter, I was somewhat overwhelmed with the amount of information being given to me. For a moment I felt as if I could not keep up with the vast amount of material Arnett et al. were providing; until I took a step back and was able to recognize that the concepts were all intertwined and building upon each other. The protection and promotion of goods cannot happen without understanding multiplicity of goods. Without this understanding, there will always be destruction of goods.

Multiplicity of goods is something that I feel many people struggle with conceptualizing, especially when they are unwilling to walk in another persons shoes. While there may be a clear path to what is "good" for us, this thing may cause negative repercussions for others. So, how do we decide whether this really is a "good" afterall? To protect and understand multiplicity of goods we must be able to take a deeper look at situations and learn what outcomes result, not just for us but for others as well. If we look only at our own side, the answer may be clear. But when we take into account the other parties involved, we may begin to see that our idea of what is good may not align with theirs. This misalignment does not necessarily deem something as bad, but rather shows us that there are multiple paths we may take in our communicative process in order to promote "good".

The concept of changing goods was also one that I found important. Arnett et al. speaks to the significance of change over time. While something may start out as a good, we cannot cling to this as changes occur. While change is sometimes hard to accept, we must be willing to acknowledge and adapt when things are no longer beneficial to us or to society. This adaptability will allow us to promote what is the most beneficial to current scenarios rather than to keep pushing something that has been rendered useless by time and growth.