Chapter 3 Blog Post

Chapter three presented us with metaphors for communication ethics praxis. I think this is one of the more interesting parts of the textbook so far because it felt like they were better put in the context of real life and common communication ethics situations. There are six metaphors the book discusses, but two stuck out to me more than the others.

The first metaphor I thought was most interesting and arguably most important is narrative communication ethics. It is described as the way we decide how the world should be based on what we learn in our own lives. I think this is probably the metaphor that best describes what we were talking about in class on Thursday about how we learn communication ethics from our experiences and are taught communication ethics by other people. To me, it seems the way we were discussing how we are taught by our elders and teachers about how to act and communicate ethically would be an example of the narrative metaphor, so one could argue it is the first step or metaphor in learning communication ethics, which is why I think it is so important.

The second metaphor I found intriguing and highly relatable to my life and our class discussion was contextual communication ethics. This is described as our recognition that ethical communication changes within each specific context. We also discussed this in class when we talked about business vs. casual settings and different cultural customs and environments. I think this is so true and that is really shows that there isn't really one cut and dry definition of communication ethics because every person and every situation requires different means of communication. The books gives the definition of eye contact, which I think is a good example. But one that stuck out to me is what we were discussing in class about how even though we are taught to say Mr., Mrs., or Dr., some people still prefer to be called by their first name. This is an adaptation that must be made within a certain context based on what a person wants or is comfortable with.

One thing I found interesting in the reading was how the democratic and contextual metaphors seem to almost say the opposite thing. The democratic praxi talks about common or collaborative ideas and decision making within communication and what it means to be ethical. I understand what the book is saying, but I also think we raised good points in class about a possible lack of a common good or standard. The other part of this i find issue with is that three praxis later the book introduces the contextual method of communications ethics which says that each situation requires different standards and ethics because of cultural or other differences. Can there be a common good or decision when there are supposedly different ethics to adapt to in each context? That's one question I think it would be interesting to explore in terms of these praxis.