Blog Post 1- Mentzer

The concept that I felt connected most to my personal experiences with communication ethics is multiplicity of communication ethics. Defined by the Arnett, multiplicity of communication ethics is the idea that we, "cannot assume that each good that we seek to protect and promote and that shapes the heart of a given communication ethic finds support from others" (Arnett, 23). To piggyback this definition, it is also important to highlight that currently, "we live in a time of constant disagreement about which virtues and narratives do and should guide us" and, "argument over what is good has been the defining issue of the 21st century" (Arnett, 29). To summarize, we all are different people on this Earth, with different values, different morals and different expectations for ourselves and others. We all have differing paths that we choose to follow, and unfortunately, no two people are going to exactly align on what goods they choose to seek, protect and promote. We will never all support one another's opinions and beliefs, and arguments will always central to disagreement. However, I find it to be extremely critical to recognize multiplicity of communication ethics as a way to understand human relationship and growth. I will further explain what I mean by this...

In the text, there are many scholarly notes that support my opinion that the idea of multiplicity of communication ethics can be seen as a good thing that allows for growth in understanding one another as humans. For example, Maku emphasizes, "protecting and promoting the good of the 'heart' in moments of ethical ambiguity" (Arnett, 28). In other words, we need to recognize the importance of caring for one another and recognizing that communication ethics does not rest in information alone. There is good in attentiveness to another. In addition, the chapter states that, "communication ethics involves searching for direction and recognition of diversity of values/ virtues" (Arnett, 29). It is extremely important for us to be open to others and what they understand to be "good", while still standing our own moral ground. I agree with Maku and other scholars when they highlight the importance of being kind to others and listening even when our morals and views do not necessarily align. There is something to be said about having respect for others while still maintaining your own path. Again, it is nearly impossible for humankind to agree on what is ethical and what is not. Or how we should live our lives and how we should not. The best we can do is be attentive, civil and understanding. 

One of my personal experiences with multiplicity of communication ethics has been within my friendships throughout college. When I first came to college at the University of Minnesota, I was lucky enough to find a group of amazing girls to spend most of my time with. We got along so well and spent a majority of our waking hours with one another. We all were so similar except for one thing: they were all extremely strong in their Christian faith, and I was not. A lot of what these girls found to be "good", was based off of their religious views. Many of their ethics and morals came from a place of religious belief, and mine did not. I often found myself struggling in conversation when these girls would speak of their faith and how it is shaping their life paths. I thought this was wonderful, and casted no judgement towards their opinions/ experiences. However, I quickly learned that it was ok that we did not agree about what virtues and narratives do and should guide us. Although I struggled to relate, I was happy to listen to what they valued because I cared for them as my friends. This is still something I struggle with today in my friendships, but I have come to realize not everyone will support what I choose to protect and promote as "goods" and that is ok!