Ethics in Communication

What is the main difference between ethical egoism and utilitarianism? Kant’s
categorical imperative and Ross’ self-evident duties? Aristotle’s golden mean and
Buber’s dialogic ethics?
Based on what I have read, ethical egoism was based on an individual that they only care
about themselves. More likely, they are self-centered. It emphasizes that people should act on
their own self-interest even if it may harm other people. On the other hand, utilitarianism
focuses on the idea of greater good for the other people like increasing the good for the
benefit of other people. Selflessness and foresight are required in utilitarianism to determine
how your actions will influence most of the population, not just yourself unlike ethical
egoism where you only care about yourself.
In Kant’s categorical imperative, his concern was about the commands or moral laws that all
person must follow regardless of their desires. He stated as well that categorical imperative is
when our intention is determined by a principle recognized by reason rather than the desire
for any expected outcome or emotional reaction that may lead us to act the way we do, we are
fulfilling our moral obligation. While Ross’ self-evident duties, he stated that we do not need
a rational method to determine our duty, unlike Kant, we need to be rational to determine our
duties. Right actions are self-evident, we can know and observe the duties based on our
intuition, which he explained it as a “common sense”.
Aristotle’s golden mean focuses on the medium between extremes our mostly known as
“moderation”. Its importance is that to affirm again to balance the life, he shows his concerns
for proper balance of life - for moderation. In contrast, Buber’s dialogic ethics believe that
dialogue between persons are the essence of ethics where it creates an I-Thou relationship in
which the other person is considered as having been formed in the image of the creator God's
creation. Buber used the image of “narrow ridge” to picture the subjectivism on the other side
and absolutism on the side. It explains that his narrow ridge is not a golden mean that rejects
two extremes unlike for Aristotle’s it does not rejects two extremes to have a proper balance
of life more likely to have moderation. While for Buber, it is complicated considering that he
rejects two extremes.

Can you conceive of an action that would be loving but unjust? How about behavior
that is unloving but just? Could a person act in both a loving and just manner, yet still
not be virtuous?
Based on categorical imperative, people somehow think of an action where they would love it
to do but unjust however it stops them to think about it because of the moral law that we
have. Regardless of our desires, it is still considered as unjust. In John Rawls’ theory of
justice, it doesn’t depend on intuition to determine what is right. It is dependent on the law
that makes an equal right and protects people. Somehow, people think it is right for the others
but for some of them they did not think that is right. But, for the law it is just and fair. There
are still some people who act in both a loving and just manner yet still not be virtuous.
According to Aristotle, even if a person lacks virtue, he or she may appear live a happy life
and successful, but they aren’t.

Some of the ethical theories require a high level of mental work to figure out what is
good, right, or virtuous. Others involve little or no cognitive effort. Which ones are “no-
brainers”?
The ethical theories that I find it no cognitive effort or no-brainers is from Augustine, the
Divine Will. He just said that “Love God and do what you will”. Augustine felt that people
who truly want to follow God will be able to do so, he has no trouble figuring out what He
wants them to do with their lives. It does not require a high level of mental work to figure out
what is good, right, or virtuous, he just believed that we should follow God’s commandments
and it will save us in our entire lives.

There’s a natural link between some ethical positions and theories presented earlier in
the book. What ethical theory ties in with Rogers’ existential theory? Thibaut and
Kelley’s social exchange theory? Hall’s critical theory?
In Rogers’ existential theory, it claims that people choose their own existence and meaning. It
is form of a structure of self-concept where it can be tied with ethical egoism where it means
that people only care about themselves. Thibaut and Kelley’s social exchange theory claims
that people seek for connections in which they may gain the most benefit for themselves. An
ethical theory that is related to this is golden mean of Aristotle where it included the virtue of
courage falls somewhere in the middle. The same Money, sex, and power are all subject to
study. In Hall’s critical theory, the ethical theory that is connected with this is Buber’s
dialogic ethics where it is a relationship between two person that are encoding/decoding their
messages to each other.