Analysis Of The Articles Of Mike Markel And Steven Katz Concerning Ethics In Technical Writing
The purpose this essay is to summarize two articles written by Mike Markel and Steven Katz about ethics in technical writing and a response at the end of both articles. These articles strategize different arguments about ethics using other authors and historical events that reflect ethics in technical communication.
Markel Markel finds an issue with technical communication in society today. He states he is disappointed with society and how nobody has been able to find a solution to this recurring problem. He also argues teleological is the main approach to society which focuses on the outcome but not the approach on reaching the outcome. A flaw that Markel found was utilitarianism, while seems well for looking for the best interest of the majority, can leave out individual freedoms as long as the majority agreed with the action. Utilitarianism also leads to decisions deemed unlogical by nature to becoming logical. Markel’s solution is to use a deontological approach to ethics because the means of the action is justified instead of the outcome. This system introduced by Kant, affects everyone equally instead of the majority, by focusing on two major components: rationalism and empiricism, according to Markel. He also brings about the ideas of Rawls Ideal Society to replace Utilitarianism - people have unlimited rights until someone does something to inflict with those people’s rights. Markel states with a right mix of both of these ideals will bring a solution with ethics in technical communication.
The Holocaust was a particle victim of expediency according to Katz. He talks about a memo in the beginning about exterminating people in vans, and the purpose was to bring out the underlying cause of putting humanitarian lives away from the reality. He also begins to state that the memo is technically correct and logical to be efficient, but the problem with this is disguising what is the real truth. Even though the actions can be logically justified, Katz says the language used is to purposely erase the consequences of the actions and present the main outcome.
Katz states the ethic of expediency which puts of an emphasis on objectivity, science, rationality, technology, speed, power. He argues that the problem with this emphasis on expediency leads to actions that are justified by efficiency, and this creates no consequences on human lives. The main stresses on dominant ethic today in America is financial and individual expediency according to Katz. He talks about the cost/benefit analysis and this is used to justify efficiency in an action even though there is potential human risk in these actions. Katz argues financial expediency creates power in system thinking over human thinking and people make decisions of life and eath using this expediency. A more humanitarian system is needed according to Katz, where consequences of human life are also taken into place. Response/AnalysisI agree with Markel and Katz that ethics plays a large part in technical writing.
Both authors make valid and logical arguments that support their claim, but Markel’s deontological argument makes the most sense. He makes great points about people being rational and people should have unlimited rights until those rights deemed to affect someone else’s. An ethical emphasis on the outcome seems dishonest and deceptive. Katz talks logically about the holocaust and makes a valid argument why Hitler created it, but it puts a system instead of human lives first. Markel also argues this premise - that Utilatirism focuses on the outcome and finds justification for anything. There are many instances that are not justifiable and inhuman.
