Dixon The most recent situation I have had involving speech ethics, had to be when I first started my job as front desk clerk at the Marriott hotel. So when I started working at the Marriott as a front desk clerkthe main attribute of the job was speaking and interacting with guest. I started watching videos for proper speech ethics and it really helped me out a lot, I am still employed by Marriott four years later, and it has been the best job I have had so far. Not only have I gotten good at speaking and interacting with the guest I find myself enjoying it.
It is itself entirely a question of practical evaluation, and cannot therefore be definitively resolved. With reference to this issue, a wide variety of views are held, of which we shall only mention the two extremes. At one pole we find a the standpoint that there is validity in the distinction between purely logically deducible and purely empirical statements of fact on the one hand, and practical, ethical or philosophical evaluations on the other, but that, nevertheless — or, perhaps, even on that account- both classes of problems properly belong in the university.
At the other pole we encounter b the proposition that even when the distinction cannot be made in a logically complete manner, it is nevertheless desirable that the assertion of practical evaluations should be avoided as much as possible in teaching.
This second point of view seems to me to be untenable. This distinction cannot be reasonably made: As a result of their intensely emotional tone, their audiences were enabled to discount the influence of their evaluations in whatever distortion of the facts occurred.
Thus, the audiences did for themselves what the lecturers could not do because of their temperaments. The effect on the minds of the students was to produce the same depth of moral feeling which, in my opinion, the proponents of the assertion of practical evaluations in teaching want to assure — but without the audience being confused as to the logical distinctiveness of the different types of propositions.
This confusion must of necessity occur whenever both the exposition of empirical facts and the exhortation to espouse a particular evaluative standpoint on important issues are done with the same cool dispassionateness. The first point of view a is acceptable, and can indeed be acceptable from the standpoint of its own proponents, only when the teacher sees it as his unconditional duty — in every single case, even to the point where it involves the danger of making his lecture less stimulating — to make absolutely clear to his audience, and especially to himself, which of his statements are statements of logically deduced or empirically observed facts and which are statements of practical evaluation.
Once one has granted the disjunction between the two spheres, it seems to me that doing this is an imperative requirement of intellectual honesty.
It is the absolutely minimal requirement in this case. On the other hand, the question whether one should in general assert practical evaluations in teaching — even with this reservation — is one of practical university policy.
On that account, in the last analysis, it must be decided only with reference to those tasks which the individual, according to his own set of values, assigns to the universities. Those who on the basis of their qualifications as university teachers assign to the universities, and thereby to themselves, the universal role of forming character, of inculcating political, ethical, aesthetic, cultural or other beliefs, will take a different position from those who believe it necessary to affirm the proposition and its implications — that university teaching achieves really valuable effects only through specialised training by specially qualified persons.
One may, on the contrary, espouse it because one does not wish to see the ultimate and deepest personal decisions which a person must make regarding his life, treated exactly as if they were the same as specialised training.
One may take this position, however highly one assesses the significance of specialised training, not only for general intellectual training but indirectly also for the self-discipline and the ethical attitude of the young person.
Even he, however, cannot deny the fact that for the younger generation the objective situation has changed considerably in one important respect. Forty years ago there existed among the scholars working in our discipline, the widespread belief that of the various possible points of view in the domain of practical-political evaluations, ultimately only one was the ethically correct one.
Schmoller himself took this position only to a limited extent.
Today this is no longer the case among the proponents of the assertion of professorial evaluations — as may readily be observed. The legitimacy of the assertion of professorial evaluation is no longer defended in the name of an ethical imperative resting on a relatively simple postulate of justice, which both in its ultimate foundations as well as in its consequences, partly was, and partly seemed to be, relatively unambiguous, and above all relatively impersonal, in consequence of its specifically trans-personal character.
It is an axiom of long standing, which Schmoller on one occasion vigorously espoused, that what takes place in the lecture hall should be entirely confidential and not subject to public discussion. The unconfined rigour, matter-of-factness and sobriety of the lecture declines, with definite pedagogical losses, once it becomes the object of publicity through, for example, the press.
It is only in the sphere of his specialised qualifications that the university teacher is entitled to this privilege of freedom from outside surveillance or publicity. There is, however, no specialised qualification for personal prophecy, and for this reason it should not be granted the privilege of freedom from contradiction and public scrutiny.
Furthermore, there should be no exploitation of the fact that the student, in order to make his way in life, must attend certain educational institutions and take courses with certain teachers with the result that in addition to what he needs, i.
Like everyone else, the professor has other opportunities for the propagation of his ideals. When these opportunities are lacking, he can easily create them in an appropriate form, as experience has shown in the case of every honorable attempt.
This, however, is just what he does when he uses the unassailability of the academic lecture platform for the expression of political — or cultural-political- sentiments. In the press, in public meetings, in associations, in essays, in every avenue which is open to every other citizen, he can and should do what his God or daemon demands.
The student should obtain, from his teacher in the lecture hall, the capacity to content himself with the sober execution of a given task; to recognize facts, even those which may be personally uncomfortable, and to distinguish them from his own evaluations.
He should also learn to subordinate himself to his task and to repress the impulse to exhibit his personal sensations or other emotional states unnecessarily.
This is vastly more important today than it was 40 years ago when the problem did not even exist in its present form.Without the proper speech ethics this would not have been possible. Having the proper speech ethics can take a person a long way, it show professionalism, intelligence, and respectfulness in a human being.
Not having the proper speech ethics can be the downfall in a person career, business, and maybe even life. This is clearly an ethical problem within their agency with the leadership and the culture they have developed.
We will write a custom essay sample on Communication and Ethical Issues Summary specifically for you. Write a to word analysis in which you describe the situation and explain the ethical issues involved. Discuss ethical guidelines that could improve the situation.
Discuss ethical guidelines that could improve the situation. Related Documents: Ethical Speaking Analysis Essay ethical analysis Essay places where an ethical dilemma comes into play in the business world, and each . Work Place Ethics In: Other Topics Submitted By raiderfan Words Pages 2.
Brent Zolezzi Comm Brookie Alphin Ethical Speaking Analysis So here is a something about my co-worker that I used to working with also my manager.
For example the ethics for my employer at the Department of the Navy may differ from that of a person employed. Ethical Speaking Analysis Essay Sample. I’m not really sure about this test, because I don’t believe I have ever taking one before. I feel that IQ isn’t really a measure of how good you are in school.
It is a direct reflection of how quickly you learn and the potential depth of thought you are capable of. This extends into creativity and.