The PR code of ethics, in my opinion, is extremely lacking. It speaks of truth and honesty but such concepts are subjective in nature and this provides too much ambiguity in the code itself. We speak of honesty, however, there are obvious times when we would think that honesty isn’t the best option. For instance if a man came looking to kill your brother or sister, the best option you would have would be to lie. So we don’t actually believe in total honesty but rather in situational honesty. However, situational honesty is vague and while we would like to think that people are good, no one deep down trusts others that much. Moreover, the code wouldn’t need to exist if it was a general state of people telling the truth all the time. So without clarity of what truth is being defined as, we are left attempting to figure it out on our own, and if anything is true, it’s that people bend truth as long as it suites their needs. If two options are presented, as long as their is some small justification, nothing stops us from choosing what you want without feeling morally guilty.
All that aside, the way the class spoke of what they would do was less than promising. There wasn’t a single student that was unshakable about their convictions. So what are we too do? The class wasn’t even afraid to voice their opinions on the subject matter. It represents a growing trend in cultural relativity. So back to the PR code of ethics, it’s a nice way to say “look we have standards,” without a real concrete foundation.