Comparison of Ethical Models - Coursework Example

Comparison of Ethical Models Ethical decision-making has always been a very complex concept, owing to the existence of many ethical models that guide the process of decision making, yet they do not provide any specificity on the decisions to be made (Shafer, 2010). In this respect, the existing numerous ethical decision making models are contradictory to each, but all of them compare in the fact that they only provide for the process of making an ethical decision (how to make decisions) but they do not provide specific decisions that should be made under different circumstances (what decisions to make) (Broad, 1930). The following are four different models of ethical decision-making: Consequentialism Consequentialism is an ethical model that provides for the process of making ethical decisions, through holding that the rightness or wrongness of a decision is based on its consequence (Shafer, 2010). Therefore, according to this model, an action can only be judged to be right when it has produced good consequences, and termed as bad when it has produced bad consequences (Broad, 1930). Thus, the only true basis of judging an individual’s action is through looking at the consequences of their conduct, rather than focusing either the character of the agent or the nature of the behavior (Shafer, 2010). In this respect, the people affected by the consequentialism approach to ethics are both the individual involved in the behavior and the second party/society. This is because, consequentialism focuses on the outcome of an individual’s behavior; the outcome that can either affect the individual involved in the behavior, or the society. For example, when an individual tells a lie, the consequence could to benefit the individual but harm the party to whom the lie is told. Consequentialism is an ethical model that is still in use to present day human services, underlining the fact that the best choices those that produces good consequences, which in turn maximizes happiness (Shafer, 2010). Virtue ethics This ethical model provides that humans must strive towards achieving certain ideals in life, which are meant to make life flourish and enable people live well (Broad, 1930). Thus, under the Virtue Ethics Model, a behavior or action is not judged based on the outcome that it produces, but the behavior itself tells the character of the individual involved. Virtue ethics therefore removes all the focus from the act/behavior, the rules guiding the behavior and the consequences of the behavior, while emphasizing more on the person who is acting the behavior (Shafer, 2010). Virtue ethics focuses on the individual involved in the behavior, whose character will determine the overall good of the society. Thus, an individual should first gain good character/virtues, which will then translate into good decision-making that will benefit both the individual and the society (Broad, 1930). Virtue ethics is one of the contemporary models employed in human services. Cultural relativism Cultural relativism is an ethical model that provides that individuals are deeply influenced by their cultures/social norms (Shafer, 2010). Therefore, it is absolutely wrong for another individual to judge the behavior of another person from a different culture or group. Thus, according to cultural relativism, there is no standard of behavior that exists to guide individual actions, but individuals should be guided by the norms and principles of their own cultures (Broad, 1930). In this respect, cultural relativism does not focus on the individual action, character or consequences, but focuses purely on the larger society related to the individual. Therefore, individuals behave not for themselves but for the society. This ethical model has limited application in the contemporary human services, owing to its extremity in setting zero standards for guiding behavior (Shafer, 2010). Hedonism Hedonism is an ethical model that argues for the maximization of the intrinsic pleasure and the elimination of pain as the fundamental basis of making decisions (Shafer, 2010). Thus, whatever action or behavior that will give an individual maximum pleasure should be taken even without any due regard how the decision implicates on the society/others. Pleasure is defined as the highest good under this model, and therefore people should do everything in their power to attain maximum pleasure (Broad, 1930). The focus of this model is on the individual and not the wider society. This model has found limited applicability in the contemporary human services, due to its potential to infringe on the rights of others by an individual when he/she is in the process of maximizing pleasure. The deontological and utilitarian ethical orientations The deontological and utilitarian ethical orientations differ in their approach to the process of ethical decision-making. The difference in their orientations emanates from the fact that deontological ethics holds that the intention of an individual defines the appropriateness of the behavior/action or the decision made (Broad, 1930). Therefore, the deontological ethics orientation is a rule-based behavior guideline, which underlines the position that certain principles hold as either right or wrong regardless of the circumstances (Shafer, 2010). Therefore, when an individual tells a lie, it is wrong regardless of whether its outcome was good for the individual. On the other hand, the utilitarian ethical orientation holds the view that the outcome of an action or behavior should be the yardstick by which a decision should be judged. Thus, the utilitarian orientation to ethics holds that an action cannot be judged as either right or wrong by itself (Shafer, 2010). However, the dilemma created by the utilitarian orientation to ethics is that it raises the question of which consequences take priority over others (Broad, 1930). For example, when an individual tells a lie, he may benefit from it but cause harm to the other party who is lied to. The question then becomes; which consequence takes priority between the good of the liar and the harm of the person lied to? In this respect, the deontological orientation to ethics provides the best approach that would be most beneficial to clients, since it does not create the crisis of priority in action/behavior decision-making. Part 2: Ethics code of human services in Psychology and Social work disciplines According to statement 2 of the code of ethics of human services, the human services professionals should respect the integrity of the client, through accepting and then treating the client with dignity and respect all the time (CSEP, 1996). This code defines the dual relationships of the professionals and clients in this field as being based on mutual respect. The same is provided for under the code of ethics for social workers, where the first code provides that the social workers should treat their clients with respect and dignity, while representing the views and opinions of the clients fairly (NASW, 2014). The same principle has been provided for, under the psychology code of conduct, where the first code requires that professionals will safeguard the rights and welfare of their clients, through interacting with them in a professional manner (APA, 2010). In relation to privacy and confidentiality, statement 3 of the code of ethics for human services provides that the professionals should protect the right to privacy and congeniality of the clients, unless under circumstances where such protection is harmful to the client (CSEP, 1996). Under the social work discipline, the code of ethics provides that social workers must at all time respect the confidentiality and privacy of their clients (NASW, 2014). The same holds for the psychology discipline, where the codes of ethics for psychologists provide that psychologists should limit their interaction with clients within the realms of the accepted standards of privacy and confidentiality (APA, 2010). Competence is a requirement under the code of conduct and ethics for the human services, social work and the psychology professions. Their respective code of conduct provides that the professionals should uphold the highest level of competence in offering professional services to their clients (APA, 2010). Informed consent is yet another area of similarity among the three fields. The human services statement 1of the code of ethics provides that the professionals should negotiate with their clients on the nature, the goal and the purpose of their relationship, in seeking for the client’s approval (CSEP, 1996). Similarly, the code of ethics for social workers provides that the social workers should inform their clients on the extent of their interaction, to seek the informed consent of the client (NASW, 2014). The same has been echoed by the code of ethics in the field of psychology, which provides that in interacting with their clients the professional psychologists should obtain their voluntary informed consent (APA, 2010). References American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, including 2010 amendments. < http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx> Broad, C.D. (1930). Five Types of Ethical Theory, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. CSEP. (1996). CESP Code of Responsibility: Ethical Standards of Human Service Professionals. Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions. National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2014). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Shafer, R. (2010).The Fundamentals of Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More