Class Discussion 12/7

I brought up a topic today in class discussion regarding the question "is the discussion about the difference about racism, sex and transitioning more generational? If so, is our generation more open to discussing these topics versus older generations?" 

As Wendy brought up that racism can't be weeded out by the decline of an older generation and is now more sly and crafty with the younger generations and communication technologies. 

I wanted to ask you all if you've experienced forms of racism or discrimination that has been considered "sly" or "crafty" by members of the younger generation, and if so what was your response? Or what has been your personal experience with discrimination? 

For example, I work in a restaurant and on more occasion than I would prefer men feel they have the right to touch me. Part of my job is to describe the daily specials that we offer to every guest and as I was doing so, a man who was at the table I was interacting with leaned over and brushed his hand against my face. I instantly felt violated and extremely uncomfortable and really didn't know how to react to a complete stranger touching my face. During that instance I questioned if I should go along with it, but if I say something will it affect my tip? How does this overt form of sexism differ among genders with a significant form of power distance? 

Chapter 12

This chapter centers communication ethics on the good of learning as the constructive pragmatic response to an era defined by difference"(210).  There are many multiple goods that we encounter in life and understanding the differences that are around is vital for communication ethics.  In order to do this we must learn from others and the experiences they have.  The text talks about using the pragmatics of talking. This means that we value the difference while acknowledging the viewpoints of the other person. 

Very harsh ideas about politics have been brought up recentLy and the candidates continue to use bad press against each other. They do not accept the other people's view, but they value only their opinion. Having a strong opinion politics may be acceptable, but doing it correctly and nicely is the way to do it. 

Chapter 12 - Communications Ethics Literacy and Difference

The final chapter of our book discusses communication ethics literacy and difference. As stated in the book, ethics literacy and difference is tied to three metaphors: pragmatic, crisis communication, and communication ethics literacy (210). The chapter stresses the importance of utilizing the knowledge we've gained through the discernment of the various social/cultural beliefs, values, and norms to be able to communicate ethically with the Other during crisis situations. When various goods come into contention in the public domain (210), we have to know how to communicate as civilly and ethically as possible. There are several examples that highlight the concepts from this chapter, including incidents like the #blacklivesmatter movement and its opponents, the Syrian refugee situation, illegal immigrants, and more. Each aforementioned topic has been extremely contentious, and highlights the unwillingness of both proponents and opponents to come to common grounds on each issue.

The #blacklivesmatter situation, in particular, is a perfect example for this chapter. I consider myself a proponent of the movement, and to me, it's absolutely mind-boggling how so many people are oblivious to the blatant racism involved in the many incidents that've occurred and continue to drive the movement. Perhaps it's a personal bias of mine that I see the racist undertones behind all of the cases of police brutality, but when I click on the many articles on Facebook, Twitter, online newspapers, and read the disparaging comments made by people towards black people, it further reinforces the belief that these incidents are heavily race-driven. 

Another situation is with the Syrian refugees. I see the same people that are against #blacklivesmatter, particularly those trying to back #alllivesmatter, are the same people that don't want to allow Syrian refugees into the US. This, to me, highlights the unwillingness of these particular people to learn and discern the social and cultural differences that drive human communication, and it's this unwillingness that keeps them from being pragmatic in the way they approach and decide to argue against incidents like these. 

Chapter 12: Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference

This chapter basically reiterates what has been talked about all semester long regarding communication ethics and the essence of learning from the Other. As defined in the textbook, communication ethics literacy "identifies the good in the interplay of self and Other and the particular historical movement, attending to what is protected and promoted" (210). It's easy to go into a conversation with an agenda that fits what you already believe in. This chapter and textbook as a whole has tried to shape the way we view conversing with another and finding out how we both can mutually benefit. We must take advantage of the Other and what they have to say because ultimately, it will lead to us having an open-mind, which will facilitate learning. That is the underlying goal, learning from the Other.

With people from different cultures and backgrounds, there's room for us to learn and that is why seeing other viewpoints is so imperative. It will help us grown individually and as a society. The book states, "we won't always agree with all ethical positions that we encounter nor should we" (209). I think this is where being open-minded has such a huge impact. It's our responsibility as a listener and a speaker to facilitate a meaningful conversation. Even if it's not on something we're passionate about or see eye-to-eye with someone, we still need to be respectful and find ways to learn from the Other. Communication ethics is prevalent everywhere. It goes unnoticed, but it has such a key impact on our society.

communications ethics and literacy

Communications ethics and literacy is about learning how to ethically communicate with the "Other" in this time of constant differences in opinion and ideas.  According to the book, it also seeks to address issues of "...religion, race gender and ethnicity" and how they have become a part of the question in dealing with communication literacy (pg 220).

Once we become aware of the cultural differences of the Other, we are better equipped to engage in an ethical exchange with them where learning can take place. For example, once I take the opportunity to learn from say, a transgender person, I at least know their individual perspective on being a trans person in the United States.  As such, it is less convenient for me to have stereotypes about them and people like them.  In that situation, I have used my communications literacy to avoid (for lack of a better term) "othering" them.  Because their otherness has been lessened, the two of us can more easily work together towards a common goal, for example, a civil rights issue.  I may, at that point, learn that a transgender woman and I have a lot more similar struggles regarding living in a female body than I had realized.

In this situation, the "other" and I have identified each other, used ethics to learn from each other, and have become more literate in the culture of another person, which means I have become a better person and future exchanges have become easier. Instead of just talking and looking at things from a theoretical perspective, the Other and I have taken a pragmatic, realistic approach in engaging in an ethical change.

Using a pragmatic approach gave us a learning opportunity and through learning we will have become more literate.

Chapter 12

In chapter 12 we are re-introduced to the underlying theme of the course text, communication ethics literacy and the difference of learning within dialogue. Two essential praxis of the chapter are pragmatism and crisis communication. The concept of being pragmatic is mentioned as "the need for practical engagement of ideas responsive to a particular historical moment" (p.210). While crisis communication is defined as "an increasingly relevant metaphor for today's postmodern moment of virtue contention; the unexpected emerges and requires discernment and action as we encounter differing particular 'goods' in the public domain" (p.210). Both pragmatism and crisis communication are involved in the navigation of difference among those of different backgrounds, cultures, and religions. We must be responsive to historical events, while accounting for the differences among the variety of people that can be involved. These two concepts are instrumental in global interaction and have become increasingly relevant to events of the last few years.

Many violent crises have occurred recently, including terrorist attacks and mass shootings/killings. These events can cause mass uproar, where opinions and ideas are expressed from a plethora of outlets, such as the mass media, or even social media. Awful tragedies like these start dialogue where suggestions are made to prevent future happenings such as these. Although some people may use these tragedies to fuel their political agendas. For example, the killings in Paris were used to express ideas on gun control/gun ownership. I also saw people use this horrible event to express their hate for the religion of Islam, even though an extremist group committed the violence. In these situations, we must be pragmatic, and ensure that dialogue is conducted with respect and sensibility in order to move toward the changes necessary. Communications within a crisis can be difficult with the mass amount of difference among groups of people, but it is imperative that it is handled with ultimate practicality.

Chapter 12

In chapter 12, the authors clearly state a the intent of the chapter that also captures the essence of the book. They say, "This chapter centers communication ethics on the good of learning as the constructive pragmatic response to an era defined by difference" (210). The ideas of the good, learning, and difference have been themes throughout the book and it seems only fitting to tie it all back together in the final chapter. Since we live in a time so filled with difference of background, ways of live, opinions, and more, it is important to remember how crucial the concept of learning really is. To have an open mind when faced with a viewpoint other than your own, can be difficult, but is very important. 
This particular historical moment we are living in is filled with a lot of bad. When you turn on the news you see reports of another attack somewhere, or unwarranted violence. It can be easy to think there are no solutions and lose hope. However, in moments of sadness and defeat we sometimes have to be able to pick our heads up and open a dialogue to look for answers. Once the conversation has begun we have to truly listen to each other and especially to those with different ideas so that we can come up with a good solution. Politics have turned a lot of issues into left versus right with no room for negotiation and from what I have read and heard it wasn't always like that. There were times when working together and having overlapping or similar views on topics was not out of the question and it would be interesting to me to see that happen again. Learning from difference doesn't mean being completely shut off to any thought that differs from yours. In this moment, it is more important than ever to think about that and apply it to not only everyday life, but also to greater issues facing our country and our world. 

Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference

"Communication ethics in an era defined by difference, disagreement, and lack of concurrence requires two pragmatic moves. First, cease using ethics as a weapon; disagreement should not immediately move us into referring to an opponent as unethical."(P 209)  In other words, communication aims to dealing with differences and disagreements, communication ethics guarantees the process of dealing with differences and disagreements to the right direction.  During the process, we should pay attention on being pragmatic and communication ethics literacy.
"Pragmatic" means the need for practical engagement of ideas responsive to a particular historical moment."(P 210) and the definition of communication ethics literacy is "identifies the good in
the interplay of self and Other and the particular historical moment, attending to what is protected and promoted"(P 210).  Based on my personal understanding, pragmatic means that we should be adjustable to the different environments and set up a clear expectation or purpose of the result of dealing with differences and disagreements, or the result of communication.  Communication ethics literacy can be regarded as the tool of maintaining and protecting communication ethics and assist different group of people to reach the expected communication results.
In reality, the most outstanding situation is, we usually make different decisions when we encounter with different people in different situations.  For me, if I realize that I cannot communication my father and figure out things well, we both will choose to pause the communication for a while and wait for a correct time and situation, or sometimes, simply live it alone, based on situations.  The most significant point of view is “How do we live constructively within an era of so many differing
views of the good, a time of acknowledged different goods?”(P 214) as we need to be comprehensive and attempt to understand others, and be pragmatic that sometimes we cannot reach the expected communication goals and keep the communication with communication ethics.

Chapter12

In the communication ethics course, we have discussed what kind of good is protected and promoted in each given case. Chapter 12 concludes what we have learned from the textbook and discussions with the analysis of different viewpoints and beliefs. Arnett, Fritz, Bell defined communication ethics literacy as “working from one’s own position, learning from that of the Other, and interpreting that material for the task of the moment in pragmatic engagement with the Other” (p.211) In essence, communication exists in the interaction between the other and you. The other could be from different background from you in terms of religion, gender, race and ethnicity. The authors emphasized the today’s postmodern moment in crisis communication and insisted the need of a contentious understanding of the good. One of the major suggested questions “‘How do we live constructively within an era of so many differing views of the good, a time of acknowledged different goods?’”(p.214) requires all learning from the textbook. Also, we need to consider which good can fit in with each issue in this era. In my case, I, as an international student, would focus on intercultural communication ethics to respect for American perspective and values.

Communication ethics would become more important topic as time goes on and unethical events happen in the world. Sadly, religious wars contain the problem of lack of understanding about others. Since I’m from Japan, which is culturally different from the United States, my viewpoint and value is sometimes different from American people. However, I believe what we should do is not holding own opinion and reject others, but being open minded and try to start seeing things from other viewpoints. Environment makes different values. For example, people from California and people from Minnesota understand the word snow in slight different ways, but it is not impossible to guess how the other group of people think and interpret the term.

Chapter 12

This chapter stresses how everyone has different viewpoints, values, and beliefs. "The major root of difference is differing views of the good. This contention over the notion of the good is at the heart of crisis communication, which reminds us not to assume that the Other will think as we do or value what we hold dear." (212). It is our responsibility to not put off everything that we disagree with, we have to seek to understand these viewpoints and learn even if we feel it is unethical. The chapter talked about how in life, you will not always agree on what is right or wrong and there may be time where you don't agree with what is "ethical". The point is not to change yourself, but it is to understand both sides of the good.

As nice as being open to both sides sound, it can be very hard if not impossible in some situations. For example, as wrong as I believe racial motivated shootings are, there are still people that see this as being completely okay. These people would be the shooters and maybe even others. I understand that these people may have been brought up differently and taught different beliefs, but I can't open up my mind to see how this can in anyway be acceptable. Even thug many don't agree with the shooter, some still try to understand why. People try to understand where this shooting came from and why which I think is good because as bad as the situation is, we are still trying to understand. The question is though, does the shooter try to understand the people? And if not, may this be the problem?

Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference-chapter 12

This chapter has a section about the pragmatics of dialogic ethics that states, "Dialogue requires that one know the ground from which one speaks, meet the Other with a willingness to learn, and learn about the ground from which the Other's discourse emerges". (223) To me this statement is at the heart of difference in literacy. This is the point that makes or breaks dialogic ethics within it's pragmatics. When we are not open to learning about the place that someone else is coming from we will close down communication, that "dialogue hides when we demand that another vacate the ground that offers meaning and vision for a given standpoint." (224) Dialogue will not hide however if we are open, request, and respect it, it will emerge. In communication ethics literacy, when people disagree they need to ask themselves what and how they can learn from the other's position and how the other's view can add to the view they hold themselves. By opening yourself up the these questions communication among people on opposing or differing sides can negotiate and change. This is a necessary part of crisis communication because at a critical point ethics guides us to listen and attend to that moment and seek new possibilities, not to stand firm and approach with an unwillingness to learn about where the other is coming from. I think that this is illustrated in almost all major topics that people debate or take sides on. When people start a dialogue with someone who doesn't stand on the same side of an issue or topic that they do, there is an instant wall that goes up. They hold tight to the belief that their standpoint is right and that there is nothing that the other can say to change their minds. Most conversations aren't had with the intent that they can engage communication and learn something from the other side, or that something could add to their standpoint. People tend to take a side and do whatever they can for that view, they want to push their agenda as quickly as possible instead of try and learn from open communication. The issue of gun control, as the book brought up, I feel does just this. There are two sides and neither one wants to hear what the other one has to say. Instead of communicating with a willingness to learn and finding a more educated common ground, than just the far left or the far right. I know even for me personally, I have a tendency to not engage communication with the willingness to see the other's standpoint. Up to this point, do you think that society is failing in the topic of pragmatics of dialogic ethics? Are we failing to engage dialogue with a request and a willingness to learn instead of with a demand for change?

Chapter 12

Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference discusses how we are living in an era of difference, disagreement, and lack of concurrence. When communication of multiple goods comes into play we should learn from difference even though it may not lead to agreement. Learning and discernment are two major topics when dealing with the acceptance of others viewpoints that the book also examines. "This chapter centers communication ethics on the good of learning as the constructive pragmatic response to an era defined by difference"(210). Learning from others is one of the most important things that this book touches on. Pragmatics is one of the three major topics that this book discusses, which is the need for practical engagement of ideas. "The pragmatic demand is to learn and investigate ways of negotiating contending goods, which leads to the ongoing rise of crisis communication studies in this historical monument"(212). Pragmatics is learning from difference without ignoring others conflicting viewpoints and possibly leading to more clarity of the subject. With differing viewpoints conversations can eventually lead to Crisis communication.

Crisis communication is the contention of competing goods where a person needs to respond with care and discernment. This is when multiple goods arise in a situation and one has to accept others views on certain issues. This can come into play when discussing controversial topics where both sides can be argued. There is debate whether the minimum wage should be raised to $15 dollars an hour. One person may be strongly for this because it will provide more sustainable jobs for the poor but they lack the information from the opposing viewpoint. If the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour the business would hire less people and people would also not want to try that hard to achieve something greater than working minimum wage when they can make a decent living off of it. So in reality this can be argued both ways, and with pragmatic responses to the topic it can provide more clarity towards the issue and allow the practice of crisis communication.

Chapter 12

In the book, Chapter 12 discusses the concept of communication literacy ethics.  This chapter was slightly different from most of the other chapters, as it takes a few terms and further defines them to the understanding of communication ethics.  One concept that I found to be very interesting was the idea of crisis communication.  The book states, "Crisis communication begins with the contention of goods that disrupts the public sphere"(213).  When the goods of two parties conflict, is where there needs to be a middle ground in order to advance toward a common good.

In my own life, I have seen this come to fruition working with different coaches. Each one has had an idea of what they want to see out of the team for the year.  It usually comes down to wanting to develop the kids, wanting the kids to have fun, and winning.  At this point when all of the goods are out in the open, is where compromise is made and these goods that are in contention are brought into a single good that satisfies something for everyone.

Comm ethics literacy and difference

Communication ethics literacy "identifies the good in the interplay of self and other and the particular historical moment, attending to what is protected and promoted" (210).  If language didn't exist the world would be a much different place and human interaction and communication would most likely be defined as something completely different. However, when people communicate they exchange ideas in order to answer or confirm what is happening. Each conversation holds a specific purpose and within that conversation each party has their own purpose of what they are communicating.

The good or a specific set of beliefs that a person feels will ultimately endorse something that will make the world better can have many variations. For example, gun control is a hot topic and has evolved greatly over a period of time and there are many different views of what the good is. The book used the example of how twenty years ago gun control wasn't as needed and no one expected gun control to escalate as much as it did. Hence, over time and as problems arise there is a shift in what the good may be. However, it is important to remember that there are many competing ideas of what the good is and should be and sometimes a combination of goods can ultimately lead to a better good. In the gun control example, there are so many different views and so many factors to consider that it is difficult to pick one belief that will universally work. Hence, it is important to always take into consideration what each side believes because most of the time there are pros and cons to each side.

In conclusion, even though there are so many goods that exist, if everyone was the same there would be no room for learning or growing. Thus, a variety of goods only helps us a grow as a society because people can bounce there ideas of each other and hopefully discover a better good. In the end, there will always be disagreements, but it is how people handle those disagreements and interact with each other while in a discussion.

Chapter 12 Comm. Ethics Literacy and Difference

During this semester that we have been learning together there have been multiple mass shootings. Three of the major ones, which is sad that I can classify them as major, since there have been multiple more and they have been more minor which at this point means simply put: less victims.

October.  Oregon at Umpqua Community College.  9 killed.
November. Paris. 128 killed
December.  San Bernandino. 14 people were killed.

The chapter speaks about dialogue and the demand.  "Dialogue hides when we demand that another vacate the ground that offers meaning and vision for a given standpoint." (page 224)
I think that this gives a highlight to the gun control conversation, it seems like the conversation is always from a standpoint of "If they did things my way, problem solved." And the confusing part is, that depending on the eloquence of the speaker, it can be a topic that you see people get swayed on.

I love Coke, I hate Pepsi.  It tastes horrible to me and I will never like it.  No amount of arguing would sway me, it's gross.  Gun control for me is less cut and dry, I can rationally look at the statistics, and see which countries around the world have enacted gun laws and see how little gun crime they have and then rationally wonder why we in America haven't followed suit.  Then I see my family out together hunting and my former military husband come in from the shooting range and all I can think about is the word responsibility.  And then I think again about the people who are doing the most harm and I can realize that responsibility is not enough.  So even in my own mind I can see the problem and wonder what can possibly be done to change this problem.

I need to constantly assess and learn about the dialogic ethics, "seeking to negotiate new possibilities and through attention to content via listening, attentiveness and negotiation of difference..."  (page 226)  I need to keep talking and learning, the idea that knowledge is power works here, as the conversation can continue around me and I can watch it develop or I can continue to learn and actively participate.  The last part of this chapter tells us to constantly learn and discern and to take responsibility but not lose our sense of "maybe".

Contending Ethics

“Communication ethics takes on both philosophical and practical challenges when met with increasing diversity of competing views of the good; the narrative within which we situate ourselves as communicators takes on increasing power and significance” (Arnett et al, 2009, p.215).  This statement nicely summarizes our study of communication ethics this semester. In all of the areas that we have studied, from dialogue to organizational ethics, we have defined a good that people work to protect and promote in that area and have been challenged to situate ourselves within a spectrum of that good.
Our study of communication ethics has been particularly interesting for me this semester because although we have discussed common themes, such as responsibility, diversity, conflict, dialogue and difference, throughout all of the topical areas, our conclusions of what constitutes the definitive good of any given context or situation remain incomplete.  In view of the rest of my education this abstraction is abnormal: usually when I am done with a course I feel that I have a concrete idea of what a particular subject is all about.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, this cannot be the case with ethics. Because every ethical situation is so different, from who is involved and what experiences they bring to the table to what the power dynamics are like and where the interaction is taking place, there really is no one way to define successful communication ethics in action. Although we can certainly develop guidelines as to what an ethical experience might look like, you really cannot pin down all of the immense variables at play in a situation involving ethics.

Taking this stance, it is not too much of a stretch to say that every interaction occurring between people involves ethics to some degree. Because everybody and every situation is different, there will always be a contesting view of the good occurring somehow, whether the disparity is large or small. In this way ethics is, as the textbook states, a very pragmatic subject to study and employ.

As we continue to shift through our current period of historical contention, crises in communication are bound to occur. Hopefully when we encounter these moments of difference we will be able to slip on the “optical lenses” of communication ethics and allow ourselves to take a step back to evaluate the situation with an eye on the value of dialogue and difference. .As Arnett et al (2009) state, it is not only in our best interest to do so out of respect for others, it is our responsibility to do so (p. 220). 

Chapter 12

"Communication ethics is the call to learn about differing views of the good assumed by differing positions" (213). With that being said, one must know the good that is being promoted before judging whether it is the right thing to do or not. Communication ethics is important for both public and private life. Diversity and differences is not something that limits communication ethics. Diversity and differences, on the other hand, is one of the things that makes communication ethics important. "The diversity and difference before us takes us to a public sphere of required communication ethics literacy as we seek to read and understand a good protected and promoted by a group or an individual person" (220).
In the "Communication Ethics and the Public Domain" part in this chapter, the book use how shooting incidents have become very common today compares to yesterday as an example. Shooting in schools, especially, has become something that sadly not rare anymore. School is supposed to be a place where kids gain knowledge and be protected but nowadays, school has become a place where shootings happen regularly. There are bombing everywhere too. Not only in Paris, but other developed countries as well.  Thus, the security in the airport has become super tight compared to the past. However, we can not expect people to agree with us all the time. We see shootings and bombing as something that is wrong, unethical, and something that should not be done as a common sense. I'm not saying that the shooters and bombers can be justified for what they have done, but after reading all these chapters in the book, it made me realize that we really can't expect people to have the same way of thinking as we do. Even your best friends can have different opinion than you. "One can turn to less catastrophic events by asking the question, "Can you depend on your friends to have public agreement on what is ethical in their dealings with you?"" (219).

Chapter 12

After going through each chapter in the course textbook, I continued to notice a pattern. This pattern is that each chapter taught me something about a part of the world that I was not aware of. Of course, they pertained to ethics, but basic communication understanding is vital towards a functional society. This isn’t always perfect, but I have learned that an understanding of ethical communication is something that varies across cultures and levels of literacy. “Dialogue requires that one know the ground from which one speaks, meet the Other with a willingness to learn, and learn about the ground from which the Other’s discourse emerges (223).” This is an incredible way of thinking about the difference amongst us all. Not everyone has the same level of education and not everyone has the same cultural background. Understanding that not having every single person on the same page is not necessarily a bad thing. It will cause problems, but everyone involved needs to be aware that other people might not have the same point-of-view as them. This, of course, doesn’t mean we have to agree with every single point-of-view, but we need to understand that there are different sides, and we need to protect our side while including the Other’s opinions.

When I think about this notion of ethics more, I realize that I have not utilized it very well in my life. I am a very stubborn person, and I will always stick to my ideas. What I think is good and right about the world might differ from another person. For example, a few older members of my family are very old-fashioned. We do not even slightly agree on issues like marriage equality, and woman’s rights. My opinions of these are very close to my heart, but some of my family does not agree. Yes, this makes me angry, but I need to understand where they are coming from. They are coming from different generations, different education levels, and different upbringings. While I do not agree with them, I need to realize that we have different points-of-view. In keeping with ethics in literacy and difference, I now know that I need to observe the outside factors that make them think a certain way. They themselves might not see why there are opinions different from theirs, but by being the mediator, I hope that I can save the good that is the notion of acknowledging the difference within communication and beyond.

Chapter 12

 Communication ethics literacy and difference centers around “the good of learning as the constructive pragmatic response to an era defined by difference” (pg. 210). In an era defined by difference, disagreement, and lack of concurrence in communication ethics requires two pragmatic moves. First, disagreement in a conversation should not immediately move us into referring to an opponent as unethical. Second, embrace the need of learning about different ethical positions that differ from our own. When conversing with others who may come from a different background, it’s important when interacting to not agree with all ethical positions that are encountered during the conversation. It’s important to educate yourself on issues that are important to you and not change your values and morals because someone has a different viewpoint on the topic. In particular, the term crisis communication is an “increasingly relevant metaphor for today’s postmodern moment of virtue contention; the unexpected emerges and requires discernment and action as we encounter differing particular “goods” in the public domain” (pg. 210)

Throughout the chapter the author provides meaning of the term “crisis communication” by explaining how crisis communication begins with the contention of goods that disrupts the public sphere. Historically, increasing differences invite crisis in the disagreement over the good. It is our position that increasing commonality of ongoing crises in our culture generated by differing views of the good make a communication ethics dispute necessary. In our society today, we often only think about our self and what we consider “good” in a crisis rather than considering other viewpoints. This “me” thinking also equates to relationships and common interactions with others. Why do we only tend to think about our self in tragic situations? In what ways can we improve this as a society together?

For example, over the last few days’ new development has been announced regarding the deadly mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Police statements and victim statements have been uncovered on what occurred inside of the deadly holiday party. Recounts of dead bodies sprawled outside of the conference room and the smell of gunpowder lingered upon entering the establishment. A video and audio has recently been released involving the first police officer and the minutes following the deadly massacre; his actions and dialogue of his identity as a police officer of what we should do and what we need to do. Ethical questions regarding our own mark and despair arise in the context of a particular life history or a unique form of life. They are wedded “to the questions of identity how we should understand ourselves, who we are and want to be” (pg. 220). The officer’s willingness to put his life on the line for strangers and protecting the citizens of San Bernardino is his identity. In that moment of crisis the unidentified officer urges the employees to “Try to relax, everyone. Try to relax. I'll take a bullet before you do, that's for damn sure.” In a crisis situation, how would you communicate with strangers? What are ways in which you would do so?