Chapter 3 gave examples of several different approaches to Communication Ethics, and showcased how vast and complex this subject is. Out of all of the approaches that were talked about I was interested in the universal-humanitarian approach. This approach takes the view that ethical principles are inborn and universal. The basis of this approach is that we follow or adhere to rational principles as an obligation of being part of the human community.
The chapter uses an example about telling the truth or lying in the circumstances of protecting a coworker. This is followed by the most impactful statement I found within the explanation of this approach. "A universal-humanitarian communication ethic does not attend to the messiness of particulars, but to the principles that prescribe or dictate one's duty." So if you were to follow this line of reasoning, we are supposed to avoid any known wrong instead of avoiding a possible wrong.
If you apply this within the example in the text then we are to tell the truth instead of protecting a coworker because lying is a universally known wrong, but we don't know the consequences of if we lie to protect the coworker. To take this principle a step further, because we can never know the consequences of what any of our actions will be we should never lie, even if the intention of the lie is to bring about something good. I have been in this situation before and thought that I was protecting someone with good intentions but inevitably the truth finds a way and then the consequences are worse because you have to deal with the fact that you lied also. So no matter how ethical you would view your reason for lying, universal-humanitarian communication ethics say that the universal pre-existing duty is to tell the truth. In this approach the rule of honesty is the best policy definitely applies.
No comments:
Post a Comment