Blog Post 2- CH. 1/2 Reading

I have to start out by saying that the text could be described as being a bit, repetitive and flowery.  Although, I think it does bring up some valid and interesting points.  Within the section about "Defining Communication Ethics Across the Discipline", the book offers multiple theorician's definition of communication ethics.  Jaska and Pritchard define this field as, "...ethics is concerned with determining what values are worthy of our acceptance".  I think this is a good definition about what ethics is, although I do not understand how this definition could be applied to such a vast field of study.  I think the phrase that Jaska and Pritchard offer could be usefully and accurately applied to personal ethics and morals, but it does not offer a narrow enough definition that remains able to be studied.  There are millions upon millions of people in this world, and each has their individual opinion and view of ethics, and applying the definition that was given to us, there is no possible way to decide one set of communication ethics that dictates the views of everyone.  Thus, I wonder how something like Communication Ethics is something that can even simply be studied.  I come from a very objective, scientific background, so maybe this has something to do with my personal bias.  I trust studies that can be backed up with numbers and facts, the black and white.  I have had trouble wrapping my mind around subjective topics in the past, so the issues I am facing with understanding the definition and field of communication ethics may just come from me thinking about this too hard, but I am interested to hear/read what my classmates think.