Practiced by philosophers all over the world, dating back as far as Aristotle, this study is important in deciphering how humans have evolved and will continue to evolve throughout our lifetimes. When going as far as to attempt to uncover why humans act, react, and respond to particular situations in the way that they do, many believe that human ethics are built from past experiences. Whether the uniquely human characteristic of reasoning is being built off of human nature or through dialogue we have had, it is evident that all humans undergo different experiences in life. When focusing on the human nature perspective, one is introduced to a plethora of information regarding the different perspectives individuals have on what makes humans, human. When analyzing, comparing and contrasting both the human nature perspectives and dialogical perspectives on ethics, it is interesting to see how the two perspectives compliment and refute one another.
The Human Nature Perspective is built on many standards for judging what is considered to be ethical and unethical in human communication. Many individuals who support this perspective believe that uniquely human attributes should be enhanced, therefore promoting encouragement and maximum fulfillment of one’s potential. This perspective supports the claim that individual’s contrasting techniques and appeals aid in fostering and hindering the overall development of logical human ethics. In this theory dehumanization is considered to be entirely unethical due to how dehumanizing an individual neither supports or encourages growth. Christopher Johnstone has gone on to observe that when actively participating in conversation, humans only focus on one aspect of human nature. Whether that aspect is reason, symbolism, or persuadability, humans overlook other essential human characteristics that are essential to a human’s character.
Another supporter of the Human Nature Perspective is Kai Nielsen who teaches the idea that humans yearn for what is not good in order to develop personalities unlike other humans. Aristotle’s beliefs backup this claim when analyzing how he believed that humans are conscious of what he or she is doing and that they do so freely. When attempting to solve whether these conversations are ethical or unethical, aristotle judges on three aspects of interrelated criteria. The first being the communicators intent. A worthy outcome or idea of intent does not justify unethical behavior in communication. The second aspect analyzed is the nature of the conversation. When analyzing what drives an individual to strike up conversation, it has been discovered that logic is not what primarily drives individuals to act, but emotion. Deceptive practices inspired through negative emotion or reasoning is also considered to be unethical. Finally, the circumstances accompanying the conversation can undermine or enhance the rationality of the conversation. Ones capacity for rationality is a defining human characteristic and reason can not function without detailed, factual info. If the information provided is not authentic it would deem the conversation unethical and could lead to further unethical conversations.
Dialogical Perspectives focus on different aspects of communication transactions in order to define what is considered to be ethical and unethical. When evaluating human ethics, the dialogical perspectives focus on individuals attitudes towards one another in a communicative setting. Attitudes and actions are viewed as a measurement of how ethical the communication transaction was. The idea behind this is that some attitudes can be viewed as more human as they assist in promoting self-fulfillment. This form of communication is thought to aid in ones development of their capacities and in their overall development. Interaction between humans is thought to promote the development of personality, knowledge and self.
Dialogue manifests itself as more of a quality, stance or orientation of communication rather than a method of communication. There are many essential characteristics to analyze when attempting to decipher if the attitude of the conversation is ethical or unethical. Authenticity is important to analyze when attempting to understand an individual’s honesty and directness. It is important that everything being stated is relevant and legitimate in order to avoid abusive language. The human nature perspective also finds authenticity of facts to be vital in conversation for the same reasons. When viewing how this kind of communication can affect research, the University of Missouri and Southern Methodist University claim, “negative bias seems to pervade much of theoretical psychology, which may limit psychologists’ understanding of typical and successful human functioning.” In this statement, you can see a direct link to how unauthentic information is misleading and how it negatively impacts our society’s ability to learn. Although being honest is considered to be a positive attribute in conversation, it can also be used negatively.
Blunt honesty can be used to humiliate and degrade others in order to satisfy one’s idea of their own self-importance and worth. Inclusion is another important point to analyze when attempting to understand ones dialogue. The effort one puts into attempting to see the other individual or to relate to their experience on a personal level is how inclusion is measured in order to ensure positive dialogue. Conformation and how warm and understanding humans can be when engaging in sensitive, emotional conversation can say a lot about one’s attitude. Judging how present and concentrated others are when analyzing willingness to help, and getting involved is important in constructive dialogue. A supportive climate can also aid in generating positive attitudes. Finally, one’s spirit of mutual equality is arguably one of the most important attributes to analyze when attempting to understand the attitude of a conversation. Society and humans in our world today are quick to judge one another on past evidence or physical appearance without attempting to conversate with these individuals first. It is important that both individuals participating in conversation view one another as equal and not objects and as things to be manipulated or taken advantage of.
When comparing the Human Nature Perspective to the Dialogical Perspective, one might draw their own conclusion in thinking that the two are directly linked to one another. That the way people speak to one another derives from their human nature. Arguably, there are many differences one must research when analyzing the two. In Ethics in Human Communication, John Stewart makes a point in stating, “objects can be talked about, animals can be talked to, but only humans can be talked with” when addressing the importance of communicating with other individuals and viewing them as human and not objects. The dialogical perspective suggests that when we communicate with others as objects, we view their presence as analogous and interchangeable. Developing that kind of view can hinder the ability for an individual to fully engage in conversation due to the lack of respect for the other’s self worth. Stewart also makes a point in stating that not all objectifying communication is inadmissible. Sometimes dialogical communication is impractical, he goes on to claim that more of our conversations could be dialogical if humans put in more effort in communicating effectively. The human nature perspective views this debate differently. This perspective reports that all dehumanizing communication is unethical. Objectifying another individual would be considered unethical under any circumstances when obeying the human nature perspective, even if it had a positive outcome.
When it comes to objectifying communication, both parties agree that humans do not concentrate on all the important aspects another individual can display when actively engaging in conversation. For example, the human nature perspective claims that humans only concentrate on one aspect of human nature and ignore equally as fundamental aspects of what makes a human, human. Often times, aspects of conversation like humor, creativity, and symbolism can be overlooked. The dialogical viewpoint on this argument is that every conversation one engages in gives them the opportunity to assist in promoting one’s realization of their full potential. Being able to utilize all information derived from each conversation, whether it is depicting their reasoning skills, or things such as open heartedness, seeking one’s full potential would not be possible unless you are taking full advantage of the information compiled from conversations you participate in. The Human Nature perspective supports this perspective also, stating that this type of communication and ethical thinking can foster mutual understanding and assist in sharing knowledge.
When analyzing both perspectives on human ethics, it is evident that the common theme is advancement. Both perspectives want positive evolution and to promote new understandings on effective ways of analyzing communication. Deriving what is ethical out of reasonable conversations built from the dialogical perspective and the human nature perspective will assist in guiding our next generations towards success.
