On our first day of class one of the definitions we came up
with for Communication Ethics was “understanding why morals are important.”
This definition is broad to the sense that the directives and causes of morals
vary significantly between individuals, their experiences, backgrounds and what
constitutes a solidified notion and definition of the word moral. This is
problematic in the sense that one person’s idea of morals might be another person’s
definition of unethical. Therefore it is imperative that we revisit our
definition of Communication Ethics and revise it to be more inclusive and
respectful of those with differing views on what constitutes moral values.
At the very core of Communication Ethics there are two forms
of communication: Philosophical and Applied. Together, the Philosophy of
Communication and Applied Communication work to produce a how and a why.
“Communication Ethics is the recognition that we take the philosophy of communication,
an understanding of the good, and apply it in interaction with others” (P. 32).
This understanding of the good signifies the why, a connection to other areas.
As morals have different meanings to different people, understanding that
dissimilarity in definitions is essential to applying the good and forming a
bridge to communication. As the
philosophy of communication is the primary in connecting to the applied
communication, its foundation is what sets the tone for the overall communication
ethics.
As Kassi Vickerman pointed out in her presentation of the recent
VW scandal, morals played a major role in how the whole situation got out of
control. The morals of those employed by VW who installed the deceptive devices
in millions of automobiles were not aligned with the morals of certain
customers or the EPA, and therefore the understanding of the good found it self
in a precarious ledge. Both sides of the issue could make passionate speeches
why this was ethically or unethically done, but as heard from VW’s president’s
speech and apology, he has yet to find the philosophy of communication to
explain his company’s actions. As there is “no universal right or wrong”
(class), this debate could take a long time to settle, furthering our misunderstanding
of what defines Communication Ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment