Chapters 1 & 2 Reflection

I would like to start off this post by saying the text was a bit repetitive, especially since it seems communication ethics could be interpreted differently by everybody. But after reading the first two chapters I think it is safe to say that communication ethics is not necessarily cut and dry and it can be difficult to be ethical within communication. The main reason I say this is because of some of the words that were used throughout the chapter in terms of communication ethics. One in particular that stuck out to me was the use of the word “good”. The book gave a basic definition of the word saying something about our values and what we seek in communication, which makes sense, but I feel like in a majority of my classes about communication of literature we talk about good and bad not being the best words to use because they re essentially opinions. I do think the book showed consideration for these questions and problems when it says that it is getting harder to tell what “good” means because there are more options before us. I know this was just one small part of the chapter, but it really stuck out to me because I think this idea of good and what it means are a key but controversial part of communication ethics.

And after getting through the introduction to the topics and defining of key terms, I thought the reading actually got pretty interesting (but still confusing). I really liked reading about how our own views and understanding of the world can affect not only what we consider to be “good” or communicatively ethical, but also how we learn about it. The book said our views can be affected geographically and culturally, and I could not agree with this more. And I think this relates a lot to my first point about communication ethics being complex. Every city, state, country, etc. is so different and diverse, and if these factors play such a role in the way we communicate and measure ethics, it makes it harder to define what communication ethics is. Especially considering the importance the book puts on “narrative” and how it often implies some sort of understanding or common ground. When there are so many cultures, places, and people, even some common ground can only help so much. There can still be too many ways to communicate one narrative and several ways it can be measured as ethical or not.

Overall I think the chapters were both helpful and confusing. I thought it tried to provide a better definition of communication ethics, but in a way it told us we have to define it for ourselves. It said it is complex, but tried simplify it with key terms like “good” and “narrative”. I am still a little confused but also interested to see how something that seems so subjective and diverse can be formally studied.