Ethical Issues For School Counselors
Ethical Issues For School Counselors
Course Study Description
CCEUS08 - Ethical Issues For School Counselors [Approved for 10 contact hours by The National Board For Certified Counselors - Provider #5936] - [$50.00 - NO OTHER COURSE FEES APPLY] This course is a detailed overview and review of ethical concerns in the school counseling arena. Major areas of ethical and legal involvement are outlined and discussed. The NBCC, ACA, and ASCA Codes of Ethics are reviewed and dissected for increasing counselor understanding. This is sometimes a very confusing area of discussion for the professional counselor. This course is intended as a review of the basics and the implications for current best practices in the field of school counseling. A number of case studies are presented to illustrate the major legal and ethical issues that must be faced in the schools today.
Course Directions
Click on the Course Directions page to read course procedures.
Course Outcomes
As a result of the work in this course, the counselor:
 | will become aware of value judgments. |
| will become aware of value systems underlying convictions. |
| will understand the process of resolving an ethical dilemma. |
| will distinguish ethical values. |
| will have a basic knowledge of the theories of ethics. |
| will understand the concept of avoidance. |
| will define ethical principles. |
| will effectively choose among ethical alternatives and understand the consequences of each. |
| will be equipped to justify ethical principles. |
| will understand consideration of interests. |
| will develop a respect for truth. |
| will know the concept of equality and its implications. |
| will understand value conflicts. |
| will become aware of the concept of confidentiality. |
| will understand institutional pressures. |
| will know the effects of categorizing and labeling. |
| will understand how counselors may influence clients. |
| will become familiar with ASCA Code of Ethical Standards. |
| will understand the meaning of professionalism in counseling. |
| will become aware of the role of professional orgaiizations. |
| will become familiar with ACA Ethical Standards in working with clients. |
| will understand sanctions for not following ethical standards. |
| will become aware of the NBCC Code of Ethical Standards. |
Text [Required Reading To Be Prepared For The Exam]
Ethics In School Counseling. John M. Schulte and Donald Cochrane. ISBN #0807734322 $18.95 on The Bookstore Page .
Study Guide Questions
Vocabulary
| value judgments |
| value orientations |
| ethical dilemmas |
| value system |
| ethical values |
| ethics |
| avoidance |
| ethical principles |
| equality |
| truth |
| value conflicts |
| confidentiality |
| categorizing |
| labeling |
| influence |
| institutional pressure |
| code of ethics |
| ethical issues |
| ACA Code Of Ethics |
| ASCA Code Of Ethics |
| NBCC Code of Ethics |
| ethical argument |
| case study |
| profession |
| professionalism |
Supplementary Readings [Required Reading To Be Prepared For The Exam]
A Practitioner's Guide to Ethical Decision Making
Holly Forester-Miller, Ph.D.
Thomas Davis, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1996, American Counseling Association. A free publication of the
American Counseling Association promoting ethical counseling practice in
service to the public. -- Printed and bound copies may be purchased in quantity for
a nominal fee from the Online Resource Catalog or by calling the ACA
Distribution Center at 800.422.2648.
ACA grants reproduction rights to libraries, researchers and teachers who wish to
copy all or part of the contents of this document for scholarly purposes provided
that no fee for the use or possession of such copies is charged to the ultimate
consumer of the copies. Proper citation to ACA must be given.
Introduction
Counselors are often faced with situations which require sound ethical
decision making ability. Determining the appropriate course to
take when faced with a difficult ethical dilemma can be a
challenge. To assist ACA members in meeting this
challenge, the ACA Ethics Committee has developed A
Practitioner's Guide to Ethical Decision Making. The intent of
this document is to offer professional counselors a
framework for sound ethical
decision making. The following will address both guiding principles
that are globally valuable in ethical decision
making, and a model that professionals
can utilize as they address ethical questions in their work.
Moral Principles
Kitchener (1984) has identified five moral principles that are viewed as
the cornerstone of our ethical guidelines. Ethical
guidelines can not address all situations that a counselor
is forced to confront. Reviewing these ethical principles
which are at the foundation of the guidelines often helps to clarify
the issues involved in a given situation. The five
principles, autonomy, justice, beneficence, non
maleficence, and fidelity are each absolute truths in
and of themselves. By exploring the dilemma in
regards to these principles
one may come to a better understanding of the
conflicting issues.
1.Autonomy is the principle that addresses the concept of independence. The essence of this principle is allowing an individual the freedom of choice and action. It addresses the responsibility of the counselor to encourage clients, when appropriate, to make their own decisions and to act on their own values. There are two important considerations in encouraging clients to be autonomous.
First, helping the client to understand how their decisions and their values may or may not be received within the context of the society in which they live, and how they may impinge on the rights of others.
The second consideration is related to the client's ability to make sound and rational decisions. Persons not capable of making competent choices, such as children, and some individuals with mental handicaps, should not be allowed to act on decisions that could harm themselves or others.
2.Nonmaleficence is the concept of not causing harm to others. Often explained as "above all do no harm", this principle is considered by some to be the most critical of all the principles, even though theoretically they are all of equal weight (Kitchener, 1984 Rosenbaum, 1982; Stadler, 1986). This principle reflects both the idea of not inflicting intentional harm, and not engaging in actions that risk harming others (Forester-Miller & Rubenstein, 1992).
3.Beneficence reflects the counselor's responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the client. Simply stated it means to do good, to be proactive and also to prevent harm when possible (Forester-Miller & Rubenstein, 1992).
4.Justice does not mean treating all individuals the same. Kitchener (1984) points out that the formal meaning of justice is "treating equals equally and unequals unequally but in proportion to their relevant differences" (p.49). If an individual is to be treated differently, the counselor needs to be able to offer a rationale that explains the necessity and appropriateness of treating this individual differently.
5.Fidelity involves the notions of loyalty,
faithfulness, and honoring commitments. Clients must be
able to trust the counselor and have
faith in the therapeutic relationship if growth is
to occur. Therefore, the
counselor must take care not to threaten the therapeutic
relationship nor to leave obligations unfulfilled.
When exploring an ethical dilemma, you need to examine the situation a
see how each of the above principles may relate to
that particular case. At
times this alone will clarify the issues enough
that the means for resolving
the dilemma will become obvious to you. In more
complicated cases is helpful to be able to work through the steps of an ethical
decision makin model,
and to assess which of these moral principles may be in conflict.
Ethical Decision Making Model
We have incorporated the work of Van
Hoose and Paradise (1979),
Kitchener (1984), Stadler (1986), Haas and Malouf
(1989), Forester-Miller
and Rubenstein (1992), and Sileo and Kopala (1993) into
a practical, sequential, seven step, ethical
decision making model. A description and discussion of the
steps follows.
1. Identify the Problem.
Gather as much information as you can that will illuminate the situation.
In doing
so, it is important to be as specific and objective as possible. Writing
ideas on paper may help you gain clarity. Outline
the facts, separating out innuendos,
assumptions, hypotheses, or suspicions. There are severa
questions you can ask yourself: Is it an ethical,
legal, professional, or clinical problem? Is it a
combination of more than one of these? If a legal question
exists, seek legal advice.
Other questions that it may be useful to ask yourself are: Is the issue
related to me and what I am or am not doing? Is it
related to a client and/or
the client's significant others and what they are or are not doing? Is
it related to the institution or agency and their
policies and procedures? If
the problem can be resolved by implementing a
policy of an institution or
agency, you can look to the agency's guidelines. It
is good to remember
that dilemmas you face are often complex, so a
useful guideline is to examine
the problem from several perspectives and avoid searching for a
simplistic solution.
2. Apply the ACA Code of Ethics.
After you have clarified the problem, refer to the Code of Ethics (ACA,
1995) to see if the issue is addressed there. If there is an
applicable standard
or several standards and they are specific and clear, following the course
of action indicated should lead to a resolution of the problem. To
be able to apply the ethical standards, it is
essential that you have read
them carefully and that you understand their
implications. If the problem is more
complex and a resolution does not seem apparent,
then you probably have a true ethical dilemma and
need to proceed with further
steps in the ethical decision making process.
3. Determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma.
There are several avenues to follow in order to ensure that you have examined
the problem in all its various dimensions. Consider
the moral principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence,
beneficence, justice, and fidelity. Decide which
principles apply to the
specific situation, and determine which principle takes priority
for you in this case. In theory, each principle is
of equal value, which means
that it is your challenge to determine the priorities when two or
more of them are in conflict. Review the
relevant professional literature to ensure that you are
using the most current professional thinking in
reaching a decision. Consult
with experienced professional colleagues and/or
supervisors. As they review with you the
information you have
gathered, they may see other issues that are
relevant or provide a
perspective you have not considered. They may also
be able to identify
aspects of the dilemma that you are not viewing objectively.
Consult your state or national professional
associations to see if they can
provide help with the dilemma.
4. Generate potential courses of action.
Brainstorm as many possible courses of action as possible. Be creative
consider all options. If possible, enlist the
assistance of at least one colleague to help you generate
options.
5. Consider the potential consequences of all options and determine a course of action.
Considering the information you have gathered and the priorities you have
set, evaluate each option and assess the potential
consequences for all the parties involved. Ponder the
implications of each course of action for the client, for
others who will be effected, and for yourself as a counselor.
Eliminate the options that clearly do not give the
desired results or cause
even more problematic consequences. Review the
remaining options to determine
which option or combination of options best fits the situation and
addresses the priorities you have identified.
6. Evaluate the selected course of action.
Review the selected course of action to see if it presents any new ethical
considerations. Stadler (1986) suggests applying
three simple tests to the selected
course of action to ensure that it is appropriate. In applying the
test
of justice, assess your own sense of fairness by determining whether you
would treat others the same in this situation. For the test of publicity,
ask yourself whether you would want your behavior
reported in the press. The
test of universality asks you to assess whether you could recommend
the same course of action to another counselor in
the same situation.
If the course of action you have selected seems to present new ethical
issues, then you'll need to go back to the
beginning and reevaluate each
step of the process. Perhaps you have chosen the
wrong option or you might have identified the problem
incorrectly.
If you can answer in the affirmative to each of the questions suggested by Stadler (thus passing the tests of justice, publicity, and universality) and you are satisfied that you have selected an appropriate course of action, then you are ready to move on to implementation.
7. Implement the course of action.
Taking the appropriate action in an ethical dilemma is often difficult.
The final
step involves strengthening your ego to allow you to carry out your plan.
After implementing your course of action, it is good practice to follow
up on the situation to assess whether your actions
had the anticipated effect
and consequences.
The Ethical Decision Making Model at a Glance
1.Identify the problem.
2.Apply the ACA Code of Ethics.
3.Determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma.
4.Generate potential courses of action.
5.Consider the potential consequences of all options, choose a course of action.
6.Evaluate the selected course of action.
7.Implement the course of action.
It is important to realize that different professionals may implement
different courses
of action in the same situation. There is rarely one right answer to a
complex ethical dilemma. However, if you follow a
systematic model, you can
be assured that you will be able to give a professional explanation for
the course of action you chose. Van Hoose and
Paradise (1979) suggest
that a counselor "is probably acting in an
ethically responsible way concerning
a client if (1) he or she has maintained personal and
professional honesty, coupled with (2) the best
interests of the client, (3)
without malice or personal gain, and (4) can
justify his or her actions as the
best judgment of what should be done based upon the
current state of the profession"
(p.58). Following this model will help to ensure that all four of
these conditions have been met.
References
American Counseling Association (1995). Code of Ethics and
Standards of Practice. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Forester-Miller, H. & Rubenstein, R.L. (1992). Group Counseling:
Ethics and
Professional Issues. In D. Capuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.) Introduction
to Group Counseling (307-323). Denver, CO: Love
Publishing Co.
Haas, L.J. & Malouf, J.L. (1989). Keeping up the good work: A
practitioner's guide to mental health ethics.
Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Exchange, Inc.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical
principles: The
foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling
Psychologist, 12(3), 43-55.
Rosenbaum, M. (1982). Ethical
problems of Group Psychotherapy. In M.
Rosenbaum (Ed.), Ethics and values in
psychotherapy: A guidebook
(237-257). New York: Free Press.
Sileo, F. & Kopala, M. (1993). An A-B-C-D-E worksheet for promoting
beneficence when considering ethical issues. Counseling and
Values, 37,
89-95.
Stadler, H. A. (1986). Making hard choices: Clarifying controversial ethical
issues. Counseling & Human Development, 19, 1-10.
Van Hoose, W.H. (1980). Ethics and counseling. Counseling & Human
Development, 13(1), 1-12.
Van Hoose, W.H. & Paradise, L.V. (1979). Ethics in counseling and psychotherapy: Perspectives in issues and decision-making. Cranston, RI: Carroll Press.
Can Ethics be Taught?
In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal announced that ethics courses are useless because ethics can't be taught. Although few people would turn to the Wall Street Journal as a learned expert on the teaching of ethics, the issue raised by the newspaper is a serious one: Can ethics be taught?
The issue is an old one. Almost 2500 years ago, the philosopher Socrates debated the question with his fellow Athenians. Socrates' position was clear: Ethics consists of knowing what we ought to do, and such knowledge can be taught.
Most psychologists today would agree with Socrates. In an overview of contemporary research in the field of moral development, psychologist James Rest summarized the major findings as follows:
Dramatic changes occur in young adults in their 20s and 30s in terms of the basic problem-solving strategies they use to deal with ethical issues. These changes are linked to fundamental changes in how a
person perceives society and his or her role in society. The extent to which change occurs is associated with the number of years of formal education (college or professional school). Deliberate educational attempts (formal curriculum) to influence awareness of moral problems and to influence the reasoning or judgment process have been demonstrated to be effective.
Studies indicate that a person's behavior is influenced by his or her moral perception and moral judgments. Much of the research that Rest alludes to was carried on by the late Harvard psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg was one of the first people to look seriously at whether a person's ability to deal with ethical issues can develop in later life and whether education can affect that development.
Kohlberg found that a person's ability to deal with moral issues is not formed all at once. Just as there are stages of growth in physical development, the ability to think morally also develops in stages.The earliest level of moral development is that of the child, which Kohlberg called the preconventional level. The person at the preconventional level defines right and wrong in terms of what authority figures say is right or wrong or in terms of what results in rewards and punishments. Any parent can verify this. Ask the four- or five-year old why stealing is wrong, and chances are that they'll respond: "Because daddy or mommy says it's wrong," or '`Because you get spanked if you steal." Some people stay at this level all of their lives, continuing to define right and wrong in terms of what authorities say, or in terms of reaping rewards or avoiding unpleasant consequences.
The second level of moral development is the level most adolescents reach. Kohlberg called this the conventional level. The adolescent at the conventional level has internalized the norms of those groups among whom he or she lives. For the adolescent, right and wrong are based on group loyalties: loyalties to one's family, loyalties to one’s friends, or loyalty to one's nation. If you ask adolescents at this level why something is wrong or why it is right, they will tend to answer in terms of what their families have taught them, what their friends think, or what Americans believe. Many people remain at this level, continuing to define right and wrong in terms of what society believes or what laws require.
But if a person continues to develop morally, he or she will reach what Kohlberg labeled the postconventional level. The person at the postconventional level stops defining right and wrong in terms of group loyalties or norms. Instead, the adult at this level develops moral principles that define right and wrong from a universal point of view. The moral principles of the postconventional person are principles that would appeal to any reasonable person because they take everyone's interest into account. If you ask a person at the postconventional level why something is right or wrong, he or she will appeal to what promotes or doesn't promote the universal ideals of justice or human rights or human welfare.
Many factors can stimulate a person's growth through the three levels of moral development. One of the most crucial factors, Kohlberg found, is education. Kohlberg discovered that when his subjects took courses in ethics and these courses challenged them to look at issues from a universal point of view, they tended to move upward through the levels. This finding, as Rest points out, has been repeatedly supported by other researchers.
Can ethics be taught? If you look at the hard evidence psychologists have amassed, the answer is yes. If you read the Wall Street Journal, you wouldn't have thought so.
For further reading:
Daniel Callahan & Sissela Bok, eds., Ethics Teaching in Higher
Educations (New York: Plenum Press, 1980).
Carol Gilligan, In A Different Voice (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1982).
Richard L. Morrill, Teaching Values in College, San Francisco, CA:
-Bass, Inc., 1980).
James R. Rest, "A Psychologist Looks at the Teaching of Ethics,"
Hastings Center Report, Volume 12 (February 1982) pp. 29-36.
John Snarey, "A Question of Morality," Psychology Today, Volume
21 (June 1987), pp. 6, 8.Conscience and Authority
Since the Nazi atrocities toward the Jews were discovered at the end
of the World War II, people have wondered how so many could have
engaged in such obviously unconscionable behaviors. The death camps
in which Jews were systematically tortured and killed were efficiently organized and
managed by well-trained administrative personnel. These
administrators were not extraordinarily vicious savages running amuck. On the
contrary, the Germans who ran the death camps seemed to be
ordinary "decent" citizens, with consciences no different from
those of any of us. How could they have blinded themselves to the clear
injustice of what they were doing? More generally, what motivates
the unethical acts of ordinarily decent people?
Perhaps one of the most fascinating experiments ever conducted to investigate this moral
question is known as the Milgram experiment, after Stanley Milgram, the
psychologist who devised the experiment. Subjects in his
experiment were told that they were going to take part in exercises designed to test
other people's abilities to learn. They were seated at a mock
"shock generator" with thirty switches marked from 15 volts ("slight
shock") to 450 volts ("danger-severe shock").Through a small
glass window they could see the "learner" in the adjoining room strapped to a
chair with electrodes on his or her wrists. The subject was told he or she
was to test the other person's ability to memorize lists of
words, and to administer a "shock" when the learner made the mistake, increasing
the intensity each time. As the intensity of the shocks grew, and the
learner pretended to cry out in more and more pain, eventually
fainting, the experimenter told the subjects they had to continue administering
the shocks. Astonishingly, although the subjects grew nervous and
agitated, more than two-thirds administered the highest
level of shocks to the learners when ordered to do so by the experimenter.
Milgram concluded that when people are ordered to do something by
someone they view in authority, most will obey even when doing so
violates their consciences.
In view of the Milgram experiments, the Nazi crimes are not difficult to understand. Milgram himself
suggested that one of the major factors accounting for the Holocaust
was the ready propensity of human beings to obey authorities
even when obedience is wrong. Indeed, although Milgram's
experiment has been repeated dozens of times with many different groups of
people, the results are always the same: most people will
obey external authority over the dictates of conscience.
Although Milgram's findings are disturbing, more recent research has suggested that obedience to authority over conscience is not inevitable. Indeed, the research of Steven Sherman, also a psychologist, suggests that education can strengthen the power of conscience over authority. Sherman had a colleague contact several people by telephone, ostensibly to poll them on their opinions. The "pollster" asked them what they would do if they were ever ordered to perform a certain act that was morally or socially undesirable, and spent some time discussing the issues with them. Several weeks after the contact was made, these same people were actually asked to carry out that act.
Surprisingly, two-thirds refused to obey the order, a sharp contrast to Milgram's finding that two-thirds of those ordered to act against their conscience would normally obey. One implication of Sherman's experiment is that if people reflect on a moral issue before they are involved in it, they are more likely to behave in accordance with their consciences when that issue faces them in real life. Moral reflection and discussion of the kind found in the best types of moral education substantially enhance the ethical quality of a person's future choices.
For further reading:
Richard T. De George, The Nature and Limits of Authority (Lawrence, KS: University
Press of Kansas, 1985).
Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority (New York: Harper Row, 1974).
Steven J. Sherman, "On the Self-Erasing Nature of Errors of Prediction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 39, No. 2 (1980), pp. 211-221.
Ethics and Virtue By Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez
For many of us, the fundamental question of ethics is, "What should
I do?" or "How should I act?" Ethics is
supposed to provide us with "moral principles" or universal rules that
tell us what to do. Many people,
for example, are passionate adherents of the moral principle of
utilitarianism: "Everyone is obligated to do
whatever will achieve the
greatest good for the greatest number." Others
are just as devoted to
the basic principle of Immanuel Kant:
"Everyone is obligated to act
only in ways that respect the human dignity and
moral rights of all persons."
Moral principles like these focus primarily on people's actions and
doings. We "apply" them by asking what these principles
require of us in
particular circumstances, e.g., when considering whether to lie or to
commit suicide. We also apply them when we ask what
they require of us
as professionals, e.g., lawyers, doctors, or business people, or what
they require of our social policies and
institutions. In the last decade,
dozens of ethics centers and programs devoted to
"business ethics,"
"legal ethics," "medical
ethics," and "ethics in public policy" have
sprung up. These centers are designed to examine
the implications moral
principles have for our lives.
But are moral principles all that ethics consists of? Critics have
rightly claimed that this emphasis on moral principles
smacks of a thoughtless and
slavish worship of rules, as if the moral life was a matter of
scrupulously checking our every action against a
table of do's and don'ts. Fortunately, this obsession with
principles and rules has been recently
challenged by several ethicists who argue that the emphasis on
principles ignores a fundamental component of
ethics--virtue. These ethicists
point out that by focusing on what people should do or how
people should act, the "moral principles
approach" neglects the more
important issue--what people should be. In other
words, the fundamental
question of ethics is not "What should I do?" but "What
kind of person should I be?"
According to "virtue ethics," there are certain ideals, such as
excellence or dedication to the common good, toward
which we should
strive and which allow the full development of our humanity.
These ideals are discovered through thoughtful
reflection on what we as
human beings have the potential to become.
"Virtues"
are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to
be and to act in ways that develop this potential.
They enable us to pursue
the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion
generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness,
self-control, and prudence are all
examples of virtues.
How does a person develop virtues? Virtues are developed through learning
and through practice. As the ancient philosopher Aristotle
suggested, a person can improve his or her
character by practicing
self-discipline, while a good character can be
corrupted by repeated self-indulgence.
Just as the ability to run a marathon develops through
much training and practice, so too does our
capacity to be fair, to be
courageous, or to be compassionate. Virtues are
habits. That is, once
they are acquired, they become characteristic of a
person. For example,
a person who has developed the virtue of generosity is often
referred to as a generous person because he or she
tends to be generous
in all circumstances. Moreover, a person who has developed
virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways
that are consistent with moral
principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.
At the heart of the virtue approach to ethics is the idea of
"community." A
person's character traits are not developed in isolation, but within and
by the communities to which he or she belongs, including family,
church, school, and other private and public
associations. As people
grow and mature, their personalities are deeply
affected by the values that
their communities prize, by the personality traits that their
communities encourage, and by the role models that
their communities put
forth for imitation through traditional stories, fiction, movies,
television, and so on. The virtue approach urges us
to pay attention to the
contours of our communities and the habits of character they
encourage and instill.
The moral life, then, is not simply a matter of following moral rules and of learning to apply them to specific situations. The moral life is also a matter of trying to determine the kind of people we should be and of attending to the development of character within our communities and ourselves.
For further reading:
Albert Flores, ed., Professional Ideals (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1988).
Gilbert C. Meilaender, The Theory and Practice of Virtue (Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984).
J. D. Wallace, Virtues and Vices (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978).
Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making
Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer
Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children's teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.
Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.
The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.
The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.
The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.
The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.
The right to what is agreed: We have a right to
what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract
or agreement.
In deciding whether an action is moral or
immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect
the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate
the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the
action.
The Fairness or Justice Approach
The fairness or justice approach to ethics
has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who
said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally."
The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it
treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?
Favoritism gives benefits to some people
without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes
burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not
imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.
The Common-Good Approach
This approach to ethics assumes a society
comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the
community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and
goals.
The common good is a notion that originated
more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More
recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as
"certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's
advantage."
In this approach, we focus on ensuring that
the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we
depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable
health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system,
and an unpolluted environment.
Appeals to the common good urge us to view
ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions
concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that
society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their
own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further
those goals we share in common.
The Virtue Approach
The virtue approach to ethics assumes that
there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the
full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful
reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.
Virtues are attitudes or character traits
that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They
enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion,
generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all
examples of virtues.
Virtues are like habits; that is, once
acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has
developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with
moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.
In dealing with an ethical problem using the
virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will
promote the development of character within myself and my community?
Ethical Problem Solving
These five approaches suggest that once we
have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying
to resolve a moral issue:
What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?
What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?
Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?
Which course of action advances the common good?
Which course of action develops moral virtues?
This method, of course, does not provide an
automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely
meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end,
we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both
the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.
Further Reading
Ashmore, Robert B. Building A Moral System. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987).
Frankena, William K. Ethics. 2nd edition. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1978).
Regan,Tom, ed. Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy. (New York: Random House, 1980).
Issues in Ethics - V. 1, N. 1
What is Ethics?
By Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez
A few years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, "What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following:
"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or
wrong."
"Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society
accepts."
"I don't know what the word means."
These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of
"ethics" is hard to pin down, and the
views many people have about ethics are shaky.
Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics
with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of
following one's feelings. A person following his or her
feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact,
feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.
Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course,
advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to
religion, then ethics would apply only
to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the
atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and
can provide intense motivations fo ethical behavior. Ethics,
however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it
the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards
to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can
deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War
slavery laws and the apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are
grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society,
most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards
of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical.
An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a
morally corrupt society.
Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever society
accepts," then to find out what is ethical,
one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I
should think about abortion, for example, would have to take a survey of
American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever
society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical
issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on
many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society
accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were
doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an
agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.
What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards a include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty.
And,
ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to
freedom from injury, and the right to priority. Such standards are adequate
standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and
well founded reasons.
Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded.
Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.
For further reading:
Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1978).
William K.Frankena, Ethics, 2nd edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1978).
Tom Regan, ed., Matters of life and Death: New Introductory
Essays in Moral Philosophy (New York: Random House, 1980).
Consistency in Ethics
By Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez
Consistency--the
absence of contradictions--has sometimes been called the hallmark of ethics.
Ethics is supposed to provide us with a guide for moral living, and to do so it
must be rational. And, to be rational it must be free of contradictions. If a
person said, "Open the window but don't open the window," we would be
at loss as to what to do; the command is contradictory and thus irrational. In
the same way, if our ethical principles and practices lack consistency, we, as
rational people, will find ourselves at a loss as to what we ought to do and
divided about how we ought to live.
Ethics requires
consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions and values should not
be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then
modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they
are consistent is an important part of moral development
Where are we likely to uncover inconsistency? First, our moral standards may be inconsistent with each other. We discover these inconsistencies by looking at situations in which our standards would require incompatible behaviors. Suppose, for example, that I believe that it is wrong to disobey my employer and also believe that it is wrong to harm innocent people. Then suppose that one day my employer insists that I work on a project that might cause harm to innocent people. The situation reveals an inconsistency among my moral standards. I can either obey my employer or I can avoid harming innocent people but I cannot do both. To be consistent, I must modify one or both of these standards by examining the reasons I have for accepting them, and weighing