For blog post one I decided to write about multiplicity of communication ethics from chapter two. I chose this topic because it seems very interesting to me because we all come from different places, different backgrounds and grew up in different families. The books definition is "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, R. (2018) Communication ethics literacy: dialogue and difference (page 25).
I found this to be interesting because it is such a broad topic that we all engage with on a daily basis. How accurate is it to have one definition for such a large group of people in society. An outside article that I found very interesting from NPR states that Roe V. Wade has made an impossible choice for doctors when providing care. This decision over the summer shook many Americans, we saw many different reactions from a number of people. I found this to be an extremely good comparison to look at compared to the topic I have chosen here.
I hate talking politics and I think in communication it doesn't always get the truth to the people. I mostly see people fighting and it seems like everyone must pick a side which can totally depend on a person's beliefs and geography and a number of numerous other things. So at what point do we decide what is ethical to put on television and what factors must we take into consideration for the good of all people? As a very non confrontational person I find this topic extremely interesting and worth learning about because it will forever be evolving.
Arnett, R. (2018) Communication ethics literacy: dialogue and difference (page 25)
No comments:
Post a Comment