Communication Ethics - Test 1

Front 1

something of importance to us

Back 1

value

Front 2

the basis one uses for determining right from wrong

Back 2

ethics

Front 3

concepts concerned with the judging of right from wrong

Back 3

morals

Front 4

Who developed the Models of Ethical Development?

Back 4

Kohlberg

Front 5

described as self-serving. a person at this level of thinking will be very self-centered or egocentric

Back 5

pre-conventional thinking

Front 6

at this level one has genuine concern for others. people want friendship and social approval

Back 6

conventional thinking

Front 7

marked by critical reflection and an independence of mind

Back 7

post-conventional thinking

Front 8

Goals for Studying Ethics

Back 8

1. Help imagine the possible ethical dilemmas you may face within your career
2. Help you recognize when you are in an ethical dilemma
3. To expose you to the analytical models and ethical frameworks available

Front 9

commonly considered to be the "you do what you want to do and I will do what I want to do" philosophy. Personally gratifying but in no way prepares one to work, live, or or play in society

Back 9

relativism

Front 10

the belief that ethics can be based in societal norms and laws

Back 10

conventional relativism

Front 11

the belief that individuals should be able to do as they please

Back 11

individual relativism

Front 12

morality or ethics is determined by the situation at hand

Back 12

situational relativism

Front 13

the golden rule

Back 13

reciprocity

Front 14

looks at the similarities of and differences between current ethical dilemmas and and prior resolved ethical dilemmas. much like precedence

Back 14

casuistry

Front 15

8 Steps of Casuistry

Back 15

1. Begin with case
2. Find relevant past cases
3. Establish precedent for future cases
4. Test precedent on current case
5. Identify relevant features of case
6. Link case to ethical principles
7. Use discernment
8. Develop guidelines for future use

Front 16

Reasoning by example or reasoning from specific to general

Back 16

Inductive Reasoning

Front 17

Reasoning from general to specific

Back 17

Deductive Reasoning

Front 18

when you claim that one condition or event contributes to or brings about another condition or event

Back 18

casual reasoning

Front 19

when you reason from something that can be observed to a condition that cannot be observed

Back 19

coexistential reasoning

Front 20

reasoning based on the belief that because two objects resemble each other in known respects that they will also resemble each other in unknown respects

Back 20

analogous reasoning

Front 21

innuendo, criticism, not important to the question

Back 21

attack on a person

Front 22

asks listener to accept position solely for emotional reasons

Back 22

appeal to emotions

Front 23

"we've always done it this way"

Back 23

appeal to tradition

Front 24

the idea that because you cant prove its false, it must be true; burden of proof is assigned to wrong side

Back 24

appeal to ignorance

Front 25

bandwagon approach

Back 25

appeal to popular approval

Front 26

conclusion based on insufficient data

Back 26

hasty generalization

Front 27

an argument based on fear, threat

Back 27

appeal to force

Front 28

"If I don't pass this course, I won't graduate"

Back 28

appeal to pity

Front 29

"after this, therefore, because of this" (good luck charms)

Back 29

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Front 30

using a comparison between two unrelated arguments

Back 30

false analogy

Front 31

'senator votes against one bill you favor and them you dismiss him'

Back 31

all or nothing

Front 32

'you can do it, so can i"

Back 32

moral equivalency

Front 33

'doing this will lead to this, then this, then this...'

Back 33

slipper slope

Front 34

means that one looks at the good and bad consequences of his/her plan of action in an ethical dilemma

Back 34

consequentialism

Front 35

when the individual making the decision in an ethical dilemma places himself/herself as the primary person of concern

Back 35

egoistic consequentialism

Front 36

the total opposite of egoistic consequentialism. this seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of people

Back 36

utilitarianism

Front 37

different groups being placed as the most important to consider when making a an ethical decision

Back 37

priority consequentialism

Front 38

ethical decisions are made using this when acting on one's principals (respecting the dignity of people)

Back 38

deontological theory

Front 39

mora character; attempting to act in a way a person of good character would act

Back 39

virtue theory

Front 40

a political philosophy that combines deontology and utilitarianism. important to protect each individuals rights. more government

Back 40

liberalism

Front 41

less government, idea that people can make the correct decisions

Back 41

conservatism

Front 42

more concerned with the welfare of the community as a whole

Back 42

communitarianism

Front 43

case study approach

Back 43

1. What is the ethical dilemma?
2. What facts do we know about the case as hand?
3. What individuals and/or will be affected by your decision?
4. What logical and philosophical approaches will help you make a decision?
5. What is your plan of action based on your answers to question 4?
6. What is the best argument against your plan of action? And how would you respond to this counterargument?
7. What is the worst that could happen if your plan of action is implemented?
8. Would you still stick with your plan of action?