Well. I accidently read the wrong chapter 10. I thought we were supposed to read from Johannesen, instead, we were supposed to read out of Schultze. Oops...
:)
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 10
After finishing my ethical reflection paper, I was not surprised this chapter would follow. This chapter deals with Formal Codes of Ethics, something I have become very familiar with since writing my paper.
On page 180, Johannesen says there are nine main objections to ethical codes, one of which being that ethical codes violate a journalists first amendment rights.
This is an interesting thought. The first amendment give every one in the United States freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Specifically for journalists, freedom of the press and speech are important because that is what a journalists job revolves around.
As a journalist myself, and wanting to pursue a professional career in journalism, I must develop a personal code of ethics that will guide my writing and conduct within the field. The Society of Professional Journalists have developed a code that many journalists, or aspiring journalists turn to (www.spj.org) I never really considered how ethics might hinder the rights given to us in the first amendment. I may choose to hold my tongue, or my writing rather, to protect someone or something. But legally, I have every right to publish what I want (if I do say certain things, I may get a lawsuit however).
So where do we draw the line? When are ethical codes too restricting? Is there a balance between personal ethics and personal ethics while in a professional setting?
For example, if societal norms or ethics differ from my personal ethics, what happens then?
On page 180, Johannesen says there are nine main objections to ethical codes, one of which being that ethical codes violate a journalists first amendment rights.
This is an interesting thought. The first amendment give every one in the United States freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Specifically for journalists, freedom of the press and speech are important because that is what a journalists job revolves around.
As a journalist myself, and wanting to pursue a professional career in journalism, I must develop a personal code of ethics that will guide my writing and conduct within the field. The Society of Professional Journalists have developed a code that many journalists, or aspiring journalists turn to (www.spj.org) I never really considered how ethics might hinder the rights given to us in the first amendment. I may choose to hold my tongue, or my writing rather, to protect someone or something. But legally, I have every right to publish what I want (if I do say certain things, I may get a lawsuit however).
So where do we draw the line? When are ethical codes too restricting? Is there a balance between personal ethics and personal ethics while in a professional setting?
For example, if societal norms or ethics differ from my personal ethics, what happens then?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 6
This chapter highlighted Religious, Utilitarian, and Legalistic Perspectives, and had a lot of really interesting information.
On page 82, the text says since we are made in the image of God, we should communicate with others in the same way we worship the Lord. For many Christians that would mean in a respectful, honorable, and kind way.
Just listening to the way people communicate with one another is enough to make someone feel sick sometimes. Bad language, cursing, "put-downs," manipulation are among the many bad things happening with communication in our society today. Look at rap songs for example. "Sexy Bitch" by David Guetta featuring Akon is an example. The lyrics read:
"...I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl
Without being disrespectful
Damn Girl
Damn Girl you'se a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch..."
(http://www.lyricsyoulove.com/d/david_guetta/sexy_bitch/)
and it continues on from there. Mass media plays a huge role in determining people's ethical standards. For example if they see their favorite movie star, singer, song writer, and so on, acting in a certain way (ethical or not) they may be inclined to mimic those actions to be more like their favorite person/people.
If we are trying to use our communication to resemble the way we worship, what would this be saying to the Lord?
Switching gears, on page 82 also Johannesen quotes Kyle Haselden saying the Ten Commandments are "'detailed, inflexible, always appropriate moral codes' which are 'adequate for all times, places, person and circumstances.'" I wonder if this is always true. Is it unethical to lie (which violates the 10 commandments) if it means saving someone's life? Is it unethical to dishonor your mother or father if it means protecting them against someone or something?
These areas are a bit fuzzy for me. I want to honor the Lord by following these commandments, but are they really appropriate for "all times, places, person and circumstances?"
What do you think?
On page 82, the text says since we are made in the image of God, we should communicate with others in the same way we worship the Lord. For many Christians that would mean in a respectful, honorable, and kind way.
Just listening to the way people communicate with one another is enough to make someone feel sick sometimes. Bad language, cursing, "put-downs," manipulation are among the many bad things happening with communication in our society today. Look at rap songs for example. "Sexy Bitch" by David Guetta featuring Akon is an example. The lyrics read:
"...I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl
Without being disrespectful
Damn Girl
Damn Girl you'se a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch..."
(http://www.lyricsyoulove.com/d/david_guetta/sexy_bitch/)
and it continues on from there. Mass media plays a huge role in determining people's ethical standards. For example if they see their favorite movie star, singer, song writer, and so on, acting in a certain way (ethical or not) they may be inclined to mimic those actions to be more like their favorite person/people.
If we are trying to use our communication to resemble the way we worship, what would this be saying to the Lord?
Switching gears, on page 82 also Johannesen quotes Kyle Haselden saying the Ten Commandments are "'detailed, inflexible, always appropriate moral codes' which are 'adequate for all times, places, person and circumstances.'" I wonder if this is always true. Is it unethical to lie (which violates the 10 commandments) if it means saving someone's life? Is it unethical to dishonor your mother or father if it means protecting them against someone or something?
These areas are a bit fuzzy for me. I want to honor the Lord by following these commandments, but are they really appropriate for "all times, places, person and circumstances?"
What do you think?
Johannesen: Chapter 5
This chapter deals with the idea of situational perspectives. Johannesen explains the concept of situational perspectives by stating that depending on the specific situation, the approach and ethical standards held may vary due to the sitaution's context. However, there are four main perspectives Johannesen cites, however there were two that stuck out to me as interesting.
The first piece of information that stands out to me is found within the first perspective, Situational Ethics and Public Relations Professionals. On page 72, Johannesen quotes David L. Martinson saying, "Many undoubtedly respond by 'doing what needs to be done' -- leaving 'worries' about ethical questions until 'later.'"
This automatically makes me think of various events throughout the world's history, the Holocaust of World War II especially.
Although I can not say for sure, it seems as if some of the Nazi's, or SS members, had this same mentality towards the Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, and other groups of people they exterminated during World War II to purge Germany of those inferior to the Master Race. Clearly there were ethical violations being made in a large scale. But to the Nazi's, was extermination just something that "needed to be done?" which allowed them to set aside their ethical questions until later?
In the beginning of the book we have been studying by Schultze, he gives the example of the Nazi who comes to the Jewish man for forgiveness. Instead of responding to the Nazi man's pleas, the Jewish man stood up and left the room in silence.
That man's ethical violations caught up with him.
I wonder if any of the other Nazi's or those involved with the extermination stopped and reevaluated what they were doing? Did they feel bad? Did they feel like it was justified because of their loss in World War I like Adolf Hitler believed?
Joseph Fletcher, a professor of social ethics at an Episcopal theological school says "the love for fellow humans in the form of genuine affection for them and concern for their welfare"is one of way to analyze situational ethics from the Christian standpoint (73).
I also wonder if any of the Nazi or SS officers were converted after the Holocaust? Fletcher's statement spells out the idea that we are supposed to love each other and care about each other.
I like that situational perspective the best because I think it is the most realistic. If everyone was concerned about the welfare of their neighbor, and everyone loved each other, how different would our world be?
Would escape war? Injustices? Murder? Crime? Genocide?
As Christians it is our responsibility to share the love of Christ to each other and advocate that same sort of idea that Fletcher had, love and care for your neighbor.
The first piece of information that stands out to me is found within the first perspective, Situational Ethics and Public Relations Professionals. On page 72, Johannesen quotes David L. Martinson saying, "Many undoubtedly respond by 'doing what needs to be done' -- leaving 'worries' about ethical questions until 'later.'"
This automatically makes me think of various events throughout the world's history, the Holocaust of World War II especially.
Although I can not say for sure, it seems as if some of the Nazi's, or SS members, had this same mentality towards the Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, and other groups of people they exterminated during World War II to purge Germany of those inferior to the Master Race. Clearly there were ethical violations being made in a large scale. But to the Nazi's, was extermination just something that "needed to be done?" which allowed them to set aside their ethical questions until later?
In the beginning of the book we have been studying by Schultze, he gives the example of the Nazi who comes to the Jewish man for forgiveness. Instead of responding to the Nazi man's pleas, the Jewish man stood up and left the room in silence.
That man's ethical violations caught up with him.
I wonder if any of the other Nazi's or those involved with the extermination stopped and reevaluated what they were doing? Did they feel bad? Did they feel like it was justified because of their loss in World War I like Adolf Hitler believed?
Joseph Fletcher, a professor of social ethics at an Episcopal theological school says "the love for fellow humans in the form of genuine affection for them and concern for their welfare"is one of way to analyze situational ethics from the Christian standpoint (73).
I also wonder if any of the Nazi or SS officers were converted after the Holocaust? Fletcher's statement spells out the idea that we are supposed to love each other and care about each other.
I like that situational perspective the best because I think it is the most realistic. If everyone was concerned about the welfare of their neighbor, and everyone loved each other, how different would our world be?
Would escape war? Injustices? Murder? Crime? Genocide?
As Christians it is our responsibility to share the love of Christ to each other and advocate that same sort of idea that Fletcher had, love and care for your neighbor.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 2
The second chapter in text talked about different political perspectives. It seems as if just the word politics is crawling with uncertainties, dislike, and confusion. However, the word "politics" in this case is used as an umbrella term for any communication on public issues and public policy.
The text reads, on page 21, that values within political communication include equal opportunity, dignity, accurate information on current issues and so on, however one stood out.
"Accuracy..." "honesty..." and "fairness" were among values listed for political communication. Looking through the past, specifically at presidents, was there honesty and fairness demonstrated in these circumstances?
Watergate Hotel: http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-202/watergate.htm
Monica Lewinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg&feature=related
However inaccuracies and lack of fairness in situations are not only done by the presidents. While talking about certain issues that are politically charged, people are bound to (at least consider) leave out information to not seem as much at fault in circumstances, or may disregard issues that could shed a negative light on a company, organization, or person in power.
But is this always necessarily bad? Shouldn't some political-related information be kept from the public? I would not want to know about nuclear weapon threats, or certain national security issues such as Area 51.
But there is an ethical line to be drawn.
There are areas where the public has a right to know certain things, but when does certain information become too much?
The text reads, on page 21, that values within political communication include equal opportunity, dignity, accurate information on current issues and so on, however one stood out.
"Accuracy..." "honesty..." and "fairness" were among values listed for political communication. Looking through the past, specifically at presidents, was there honesty and fairness demonstrated in these circumstances?
Watergate Hotel: http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-202/watergate.htm
Monica Lewinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg&feature=related
However inaccuracies and lack of fairness in situations are not only done by the presidents. While talking about certain issues that are politically charged, people are bound to (at least consider) leave out information to not seem as much at fault in circumstances, or may disregard issues that could shed a negative light on a company, organization, or person in power.
But is this always necessarily bad? Shouldn't some political-related information be kept from the public? I would not want to know about nuclear weapon threats, or certain national security issues such as Area 51.
But there is an ethical line to be drawn.
There are areas where the public has a right to know certain things, but when does certain information become too much?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Schultze Chapter 6: Class Notes
Incarnate Power:
- Power of Communication
- Power of Knowing
- Power of Charisma
Logos: word
Rhema: spoken/inspired
Charisma: gifts
Knowledge: information abundance, information overload
"Sticks and stones:" racial slur is bad for your soul
"Sticks and stones:" racial slur is bad for your soul
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Schultze: Chapter 6
Hello old friend. I am so happy that we have switched back to this text for the time being. It is written in a clearer, more understandable way that Phaedrus or Johannessen, so it is like a breath of fresh air.
This chapter was dedicated to the topic of power, more specifically incarnate power. After reading the text, there were a couple passages that stuck out to me for various reasons.
The first takes place on page 90. Schultze is talking about how words can and do hurt people. I found this interesting because this is exactly what my devotional is about that I will give in early November. He says, "Even without physical violence, our communication can injure listeners and speakers alike."
It kind of goes back to the saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words with never hurt me."
Like I said this is a topic I will dive into more during my devotional, so I don't want to give my whole presentation away. However, I will include the clip I am using in my presentation to help demonstrate the point that words can be hurtful and harmful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJyyhNwdQz0
This clip from Mean Girls demonstrates how hurtful Regina words were to the other girls, ultimately breaking up their friendships.
In my own personal life, I used to be made fun of for my frizzy hair and dry skin. Because of this, I have always been self conscious, specifically over my dry hands. When David asked to see my hands just before we were dating (my freshman year of college), I told him no because I was worried about what he would think. Luckily, David loves my hands and says they are beautiful (that's when I knew he was different. :) )
Schultze's point about words being sometimes just as harmful as physical violence is completely true, since words can affect us deeply for a long, long time.
Another point that stuck out to me from the reading was on page 94. Schultze is quoting a passage from Quintilian and says, "In other words, person and message should be united so that what we say is a product of who we are and what we believe..."
This goes right along with my earlier point. Our communication, both verbal and nonverbal, can help determine our reputation. By using harsh words, or saying hurtful things, a person may be defined as being mean, rude, inconsiderate or hurtful. Instead, saying kind words and uplifting things will help people associate positive words with that person.
They say we are what we eat. But I think, we are what we say (both verbally or nonverbally).
What are your thoughts?
This chapter was dedicated to the topic of power, more specifically incarnate power. After reading the text, there were a couple passages that stuck out to me for various reasons.
The first takes place on page 90. Schultze is talking about how words can and do hurt people. I found this interesting because this is exactly what my devotional is about that I will give in early November. He says, "Even without physical violence, our communication can injure listeners and speakers alike."
It kind of goes back to the saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words with never hurt me."
Like I said this is a topic I will dive into more during my devotional, so I don't want to give my whole presentation away. However, I will include the clip I am using in my presentation to help demonstrate the point that words can be hurtful and harmful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJyyhNwdQz0
This clip from Mean Girls demonstrates how hurtful Regina words were to the other girls, ultimately breaking up their friendships.
In my own personal life, I used to be made fun of for my frizzy hair and dry skin. Because of this, I have always been self conscious, specifically over my dry hands. When David asked to see my hands just before we were dating (my freshman year of college), I told him no because I was worried about what he would think. Luckily, David loves my hands and says they are beautiful (that's when I knew he was different. :) )
Schultze's point about words being sometimes just as harmful as physical violence is completely true, since words can affect us deeply for a long, long time.
Another point that stuck out to me from the reading was on page 94. Schultze is quoting a passage from Quintilian and says, "In other words, person and message should be united so that what we say is a product of who we are and what we believe..."
This goes right along with my earlier point. Our communication, both verbal and nonverbal, can help determine our reputation. By using harsh words, or saying hurtful things, a person may be defined as being mean, rude, inconsiderate or hurtful. Instead, saying kind words and uplifting things will help people associate positive words with that person.
They say we are what we eat. But I think, we are what we say (both verbally or nonverbally).
What are your thoughts?
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Phaedrus: The Final Section
This section of the text was interesting to me. Going through both persuasion and public relation classes, I have learned the different parts necessary for good rhetoric, or argument.
In this section, Socrates and Phaedrus discuss rhetoric and how it is used, and there were a few sentences that stuck out to me. For example:
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
This strikes me as humorous because I agree with this statement. I always correct people when they speak or write and use grammar or language incorrectly. For instance, if I heard someone say, "I did good on that test." I would polietly respond, "No, you did well."
That goes the same way if/when I see people use "text language" in academic papers. I once edited a paper where someone wrote, "It's a great place if u like warm weather." I would be more content with that person had he or she made a more complex mistake, but something as silly as "u" versus "you" is just pitiful! I think Socrates was on to something by saying the disgrace begins with just poor English, writing, or speaking skills. Shoo!
Another part that stuck out to me was the response Phaedrus gave to Socrates saying:
Phaedr. And yet, Socrates, I have heard that he who would be an orator has nothing to do with true justice, but only with that which is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment; nor with the truly good or honourable, but only with opinion about them, and that from opinion comes persuasion, and not from the truth.
In communication classes we are taught that pathos, ethos and logos are important in persuasion/rhetoric. In this case, the ethos would be questioned if people said what they thought their audience wanted to hear.
What if Jesus just said what his opposition wanted to hear? What he if denied that he was Christ? What if, since Jesus knew he was not welcomed by many, he lied about who he was? What if, what if, what if?!
Where would we be?
People need to be challenged. People need to hear what they might not want to hear in order for them to learn and grow. I am thankful for people who stand up for themselves, or stand their ground in situations because they will not give in to that peer pressure of answering/speaking to a crowd with the crowd's well-being in mind. Speak out! Be brave! Stand up for what you believe in!
Whoo. I'm getting all worked up.
What are your thoughts on this all? In certain circumstances, is it okay to say what the person wants to hear? Think of sales for example. Maybe a person isn't sure whether they really need another pair of shoes. But after a sales person insists they make the outfit complete and that they will save money today since they are on sale, the person gives in because he/she hears what he/she wants to hear.
So where do you draw the line? When is it okay to speak your mind and when is it (if ever) okay to say what people want to hear? Hmm...
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
This strikes me as humorous because I agree with this statement. I always correct people when they speak or write and use grammar or language incorrectly. For instance, if I heard someone say, "I did good on that test." I would polietly respond, "No, you did well."
That goes the same way if/when I see people use "text language" in academic papers. I once edited a paper where someone wrote, "It's a great place if u like warm weather." I would be more content with that person had he or she made a more complex mistake, but something as silly as "u" versus "you" is just pitiful! I think Socrates was on to something by saying the disgrace begins with just poor English, writing, or speaking skills. Shoo!
Another part that stuck out to me was the response Phaedrus gave to Socrates saying:
Phaedr. And yet, Socrates, I have heard that he who would be an orator has nothing to do with true justice, but only with that which is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment; nor with the truly good or honourable, but only with opinion about them, and that from opinion comes persuasion, and not from the truth.
In communication classes we are taught that pathos, ethos and logos are important in persuasion/rhetoric. In this case, the ethos would be questioned if people said what they thought their audience wanted to hear.
What if Jesus just said what his opposition wanted to hear? What he if denied that he was Christ? What if, since Jesus knew he was not welcomed by many, he lied about who he was? What if, what if, what if?!
Where would we be?
People need to be challenged. People need to hear what they might not want to hear in order for them to learn and grow. I am thankful for people who stand up for themselves, or stand their ground in situations because they will not give in to that peer pressure of answering/speaking to a crowd with the crowd's well-being in mind. Speak out! Be brave! Stand up for what you believe in!
Whoo. I'm getting all worked up.
What are your thoughts on this all? In certain circumstances, is it okay to say what the person wants to hear? Think of sales for example. Maybe a person isn't sure whether they really need another pair of shoes. But after a sales person insists they make the outfit complete and that they will save money today since they are on sale, the person gives in because he/she hears what he/she wants to hear.
So where do you draw the line? When is it okay to speak your mind and when is it (if ever) okay to say what people want to hear? Hmm...
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Phaedrus: The Soul
First, I would like to begin by saying I am so glad I have the opportunity to read modern-language material most of the time. I am having a really hard time getting through the Phaedrus reading, especially when there is Greek mythology and uncommon words mixed in.
Luckily we are using the translation which is a bit easier for me to get through...
This classes reading was around the Phaedrus section regarding the soul. The text talks about the white horse, the dark horse and the charioteer. The white horse is more disciplined, obedient and well-mannered, while the dark horse is rowdy, untamed and unwilling to cooperate. The charioteer is in charge of controlling, or helping the horses behave.
){kind=link}
In Christianity, God acts as the charioteer, grouping the horses together and controlling them. As humans, we are all a lot like the white and dark horses. At times, we can be switch between identifying with qualities of the white or dark horse. As Christians, however, we strive to be more like the white horse; diciplined, obedient and well-mannered in our relationship with Christ and others. We want to show that Godly love to others and want to spread the joy of Christ to others. There are dark horses out there though, that remain that way. People can lose sight of a righteous path, and fall into a rowdy, untamed or unwilling lifestyles.
God's grace is amazing though and allows even the darkest horse to become stark white by accepting that Christ is Lord and receiving redemption through Jesus.
Imagine though, a world full of white horses. :)
As Christians, our goal is to spread the Word, and by doing so, we can help gray horses, brown horses, and black horses become another white horse in God's corral.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Phaedrus: Reading 1
This reading documents a conversation being Phaedrus and Socrates about love, specifically nonlovers and lovers. One idea from the text that stood out for me was Phaedrus states that he knows Socrates better than Socrates knows himself.
In the reading, it seems as if Phaedrus and Socrates demonstrate phileo, or that brotherly love. Although the story Socrates was telling seemed to lean towards eros.
Being a newlywed I am finding this statement is true in a lot of ways. David and I are best friends but we are so close that he can read me like a book!
For example, David can read my facial expressions, even when I try so hard to disguise them. He knows when I am mad, sad, happy, confused, and so on, even if I do not feel like I am giving my emotions away. Not only that but we share common interests and will often say the same things at the same time.
I think that is part of why love is unique. There are various types of love however. The Bible says there are three types of love, eros, phileo, and agape.
Eros is defined as intimate or sexual love. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=eros)
Phileo is defined as brotherly love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phileo)
Agape is defined as an unconditional love such as the love of Christ (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define:+agape&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
In the reading, it seems as if Phaedrus and Socrates demonstrate phileo, or that brotherly love. Although the story Socrates was telling seemed to lean towards eros.
It is interesting to me how loosely the word "love" is thrown around. For example, all to often we hear people say, or we say, "I LOVE that movie" or "I LOVE that restaurant," or "I LOVE that shirt!"
Has the real meaning of love been skewed because of how loose the word has become? Does it still mean the same things if we use the word to describe so many insignificant things such as food, clothes, movies or books?
I love 1 Corinthians 13 because it clearly defines the concept of love. I challenge you to read this passage and reflect on your own life. Do you use the word love too loosely? Do you follow what the Bible says? What are areas you can work on based on this passage?
1 Corinthians 13 4-18: 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails... (NIV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)