For me, Chapter 3 of Communication Ethics Literacy made for effective learning, thanks in large part to a wealth of examples that took abstruse concepts like 'multiplicity of goods' and grounded them in contexts fitting worldviews we're all familiar with. I didn't feel like I needed to closely read the authors' explanations of universal-humanitarian, contextual, or democratic ethics. We know these ideas from history, politics, and our own lives. The communication literacy we unknowingly develop as children, teenagers, and young adults--including the people we meet who embody traits of the narrative- or procedure-minded communicator--shape our perceptions of these categories. I was skeptical, at first, that the infinite multiplicity of goods could be so easily filtered under six ethics umbrellas (or even that it would be useful to do so), but it's difficult to imagine a good, a philosophy of communication, that could not apply to at least one of these categories.
Which, as I reflect on this chapter, is a problem I note with the six-pillar model. If one views a single 'good' as a set of permutations of an infinite number of ethical questions (Is A or B more important? 'A.' Would you do X or Y? 'X.'), it becomes difficult to draw lines between the categories. As Arnett, et al. describe, universal-humanitarian ethics includes "protecting and promoting the ability of the human to discern the good through a rational process." Democratic ethics, meanwhile, fosters "collaborative decision making" through open discussion of ideas, customs, and rights. Is there any more "rational" process than that which arrives at a conclusion only after every viewpoint has been heard? Is the context of an argument not largely forged by the life narratives of the people involved? On these questions, the authors are mum--especially surprising, given their tendency to remind the reader that the book's interpretations of communication ethics concepts are only interpretations. I wonder which of the six ethics categories guided the authors away from taking Chesebro's (p.44) groundwork theory to task.
I also really like the examples in the chapter, as they allowed for somewhat complex ideas to be filtered down to a, real life decision making situation. Making the theory more easily accessible to me. I also ran into the issue of trying to figure out the benefits of of using the six theories, but from another viewpoint. I was really confused as to where the differences and boarders-so to speak- of the theories were. Which made the whole idea kinda different since I could see all six working in any situation, but also that they tended to work together for an individual to reach their decision. For example, codes and rules to me was the same thing as the contextual one.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, as the theories got more defined the characteristics and nuances of them really came out. And the real priorities of the "good" in each one became clear. I think as we go throughout the semester, these theories and their differences are going to start to really define what we see as ethical in any situation. However, we need to just get through these with a beginners understanding and let our knowledge of them grow through application and example.
Drawing lines between categories can often times be tough. We see that they show us that all of the pillars are a good way to reach out to someone. My question is; just where do we draw the line and more even how can we judge. I have an issue with democratic reasoning because I like to be on top. I feel America is almost tailored that way.
ReplyDeleteAlso to touch on how you addressed the ideas of how helpful it was to see so many examples in our chapter. We tend to learn better if we see more to give us more ideas. I have reasons for learning different than others as well as you do. We may not always jump on the first thing we see. The umbrellas are not always ones we want to follow but they are still nice to see. Gives us a easier idea of what to understand.