Blog Post 1- Proulx

 Lauren Proulx

Blog Post 1

    Arnett et. al.'s introductory chapters discuss how we define communication ethics and the theory of good. Those things are not clearly defined and agreed upon by all, which is where the challenge lies. Where is the fine line between what's ethical and what's not, and according to whom? Who gets to decide what's good and what's not and why? Decisions on these things are the backbone of civilization as one decision of something being acceptable or not can be applied to other things and then we have a trickle-down effect. That's why its' essential to have a checks and balances system. We absolutely need healthy debate and questioning. We need diverse perspectives to pose scenarios and questions coming from a place we hadn't even thought of. 

    In chapter 2 of Arnett et. al. he refers to Jensen's work in 1991 where he says "we grapple with the tension between relativistic and absolute ethics, between ends and means, between the 'is' and 'ought', and between private and public goods" (Jensen, Arnett et. al. pg. 28). "Jensen wants to remind us to protect and promote the good of tension, ever wary of answers that emerge without any counter claim. (Arnett et. al. pg. 28). I think that's brilliantly articulated. We shouldn't be relieved when there is no rebuttal in things, especially on complex topics. Frankly, we should be worried and seek a bit of conflict through counterarguments. It reminds me of the notion of diversity of thought. This is something that is often heavily applauded from the outside but I don't think many people and organizations do a good job of upholding and actually supporting diversity of thought once it's directly impacting them. I've felt this in many classrooms here at the U, where diversity of thought is encouraged from day 1, but when some kids share ideas or opinions, specifically of a certain political party, almost every time I hear them being met with being problematic and utterly unacceptable. When frankly what they've said is the opinion half the country has, and is absolutely critical according to Jensen and Arnett et. al. to provide this tension. I'm a Strategic Communications major, so have taken countless Journalism and Communications classes in my time here and can say that the prominent ideas being brought forth in every classroom heavily lean left. Looking at that objectively, not at all inputting my personal beliefs into the equation, everyone should think that's somewhat problematic. Because the reality of our country outside of these sheltered walls of our classrooms says that the other half of our population disagrees. Therefore per our author's advice, we need to examine the other side of the political spectrum with more respect and weight in the classroom instead of leaning too heavily toward one side to foster critical thinking and give students a better understanding of real-world current concepts. 

    It's important to practice what we preach. We should not just be teaching and encouraging diversity of thought, particularly in our safe classrooms which is quite literally what they're for, but supporting and implementing ways to allow for tension and healthy debate to be fostered in our classrooms. We're supposed to be hearing all sides of the story and the ethical thing to do when communicating on a topic is to give each person who shares their perspective or even simply voices the perspective of a group whom they themselves may not even fall into, the time of day and respect they deserve for trying to create a critical thinking environment.