New Semester, New Class, ANOTHER Blog...

This Blog post is going to be an incredible work of deep "independant" insight from me... After reviewing Chapters 1 and 2 from the only book Amazon decided to send me I came up with the following conclusions...

I though that Bok (a girl... who I thought was a boy... oops!) was interesting with her focus on alternatives. I think it is a great idea to look at what the options are when deciding ethical issues (obvious don'tcha think? Okay, I'm sorry about that improper grammar... Sarah Palin is still tormenting me) and I was glad that right off the bat the book made it clear that ethical decision making is not cut and dry with a right or wrong answer. There is always grey area, and a lot of it.

I felt like Aristotle's evaluation of ethics made the most sense. His focus on practicality and middle ground seemed the most "practical" and helpful when it comes to ethical decision making. I liked when the book said, "Seeking the golden mean implies that individual acts are not disconnected from one another, but rather that they form a whole that a person of good character should aspire to." By seeking this "golden mean" one can make a good decision while keeping focus on the two possible extremes.

Though I like Aristotle's model, I align mostly with Kant in the way I make decisions. I've always tried to live by the golden rule. Acting in a way you would want others to act is a good way to keep a sort of system of checks and balances; unless, of course, a given bowl has more ice cream than the next, and in that case I can't say that the golden rule applies. There is the problem, however, of people having very differing ideals of what is right and wrong and what is okay to do to others and oneself.

Should we be suprised though that I think Mill is kind of a &#@$ head? I think this ethics model is an easy way to devalue individual rights and basic ethics. When you start trying to decide if the end justifies the means you get atomic bombs dropped on foreign cities killing thousands and spreading radiation for years. Though the end result has to be considered it can be a slippery slope in enabling people to dismiss certain ethical standards.

I thought Ross has a good point that coincides with what I said about grey area with Aristotle where there is "more than one ethical value simultaneously competing for preeminece in our ethical decision making." There's never a right or wrong when it comes to ethics. Usually just a kind of good-slash-kind of crappy vs. another kind of good-slash-kind of crappy outcome.

THREE CHEERS FOR COMMUNITARIANISM!!!!! Another shocker, right? "Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions, understood not as disconnected choices but analyzed as the impact of the sum of the choices on society." And I sure think that's a great thing to consider! This also goes along nicely with what Kant talked about. Do unto others as you would want them to do to you and realize it's impact on society... this should be the golden rule and ethical plumbline of the 21st century.

And now onto chapter 2... I loved the paragraph that explained what a contradiction journalists face these days in having to try to be "neutral, yet investigative". I believe pretty strongly (though this opinion could probably be swayed) that objectivity is dangerous to truth in journalism. I think that when an opion is put into a piece of work it gives people something to think about. People don't hold their beliefs in the "middle of the road". We make opinions and we argue our points, research our topics, and look at what the other side is saying. The differing of opinions is what is valuable truth in journalism. Not the faking of objectivity to allow people to "make up their own minds."

Another part of this chapter that stood out to me was the section titled "Packaging the story: News as Manufactured Product". While I was reading the part about T.V. news being based on the best video clip I pondered what that meant for politics, laws, and the role the media plays in keeping people uninformed. The making of laws, and what's in such laws isn't very glittery or fun. And it's definitely not a great video clip. And therefore is not really reported on very thoroughly and in turn keeps the public uninformed, which is a very sad outcome. So then is T.V. reporting a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not really sure.

***In the same section there was a sentence that read, "reporting an election as a contest fails to focus on the policy issues, which is what democratic elections are supposed to be about." This single sentence made me think entirely differently about the way we follow elections. It is kind of bogus to report the polls as often as is done.***

And finally on page 33 (4th paragraph) the book talks about a study done to see how different journalists feel about different ethical situations. The data seemed to line up with Aristotle's idea of ethical decision making. The journalists, for the most part, seemed to have a sense of looking for practicality and middle ground.

Now as much as I love to passionately blog, my kitty wants to play fetch and I have an ethical decision to make... Quit blogging and sadden my readers but spare the wrath of a little feline OR go play fetch with the cute fur ball and suffer the audiences backlash... FETCH IT IS!!!