Module 2 Blog

   
    In the world today, we are plagued with making decisions on a daily basis of what is right and what is wrong. I want to explore the ethical and social responsibility amongst the masses and what I believe would be most ideal to benefit everyone. First, let us define the two. Social responsibility is viewed as an individual having the civic duty to decide and act in ways that are a benefit to society as a whole. To me, it pretty much means, don't be selfish; or using more positive framing, be selfless. Now, ethical responsibility is seen as the duty to follow a morally correct path. To me, this can vary all around the world based on your experiences and what you consider to be morally correct. 
    In my opinion, you can not have one of these without the other. I believe they go hand in hand. For individuals or companies to be socially responsible they have to be able to act on their ethical responsibility to do so, and vice versa. This is in an ideal world of course, which we know is not always the case. In the event that individuals or companies do not exercise social responsibility whether it be out of greed, anger, or any other influencer, others must be able to identify and act on behalf of their ethical responsibility. The same goes in the opposite direction in that we must act on social responsibility when we see those who falter from their ethical responsibility. 
    You truly cannot have one without the other, and it is a responsibility of us all whether socially or ethically. Plain and simple, we just need to be good selfless people. I hope you enjoyed my first blog!

Jared

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Module 7 Blog

Fisher writes of his narrative paradigm “the narrative paradigm advances the idea that good communication is good by virtue of the fact of its’ satisfying the requirements of narrative rationality, namely, that it offers a reliable, trustworthy, and desirable guide to belief and action.” The metaphor suggests that arguments are a species of narrative, and that all narratives have a rational structure that can be analyzed and evaluated. I would have to agree with Fisher’s position of categorizing arguments as a species of narrative. Arguments, as we know them through rhetoric, are thought out, planned, and typically “battle-tested”. By this belief alone, if they are planned then they must follow a structure making it possible to analyze and evaluate, fitting right into Fisher’s metaphor. What that evaluation and analysis finds is a whole different subject, and one that could easily differ from one audience to the other based on their beliefs and values. Arguments are a form of narrative...
Read more

Module 3 Blog

Image
     The three rhetorical settings that Aristotle taught were deliberative oratory in the legislature to debate laws, epideictic oratory at venues such as funerals or military honors, and forensic oratory such as arguments of innocence or guilt in a courtroom.       Deliberative oratory was often given in a fashion to weigh evidence for and against a plan or policy to determine what is in the best interest of the polis.     Epideictic oratory addressed virtue and vice dealing with the topics of praise and blame. It was the presentation of the virtue of an idea, a practice, or an action in order to get the audience to think, to reflect, or to embrace a new idea.     Forensic oratory is purposed to decide questions of justice, innocence or guilt, the severity of a crime, and the severity of a punishment. It focuses on what has already happened in the past rather than what may happen in the future.     I believe deliberative ...
Read more