Monday 14 April 2014

Task 5C Ethics in a professional context

eth·ics
[eth-iks] Show IPA plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

 As I usually do when I've not been well acquainted with a particular word, above is the dictionary's very basic idea of what ethics means. But obviously this isn't enough to help me on my way with my inquiry.
The Reader, as always has been incredibly informative and valuable. It has been at my aide whilst carrying out task's 5A and 5B. I'm now very well acquainted with ethics.
Like I've mentioned in Task 5A the Reader states how ethics are based on three main contexts; Personal, Professional and Organizational. They each play a big part in society by promoting goodness.
  • Personal - Family values, conscience and religion.
  • Professional - Code of conduct, policy.
  • Organizational - Culture, ethos, way of practice.
When thinking about my workplace at the Catholic school, there is a big connection with religion and ethos. From my research, religion isn't just part of Personal ethics at my workplace but Organizational too. In fact this is where it seems to have the the bigger impact. The ethos of the school is evidently based on Christianity. The school's mission statement/ethos is mentioned in my Task 5B
When looking through the code of conduct/policies of the school (the Professional ethics) I had noticed the error in the Child protection policy how it states we cannot promise a child to keep secrets but we are to protect a child from harm [see more in task 5B.] This can give a staff member such a tough decision, such as the photographer in Case 2 in the Reader when choosing which path to take. If I am ever in a situation where a child needs to tell me something important but will only tell me if I promise to keep it a secret, what should I do? 
  1. Go with the child protection comes first part of the policy therefore lying to a child no matter how sinful? 
  2. Or stick by the main part of the policy; influenced by the religious ethos of the school and not lie to a child no matter what?
When promoting goodness both the code of conduct/policy and religious part have their heart's in the right place, so to speak, but somehow there has been a miscommunication as I believe the child's protection must come first above the gospel values of not lying so how can not being able to promise to a child to keep secrets be in the Child Protection Policy when another part within the policy basically states to put a child's safety first? I know that outcomes could be dangerous for the child, but surely it's always better for the child to be honest. It's then up to the concerned adults to think of a strategy on how to deal with it prioritising the child's safety.
I can see a relation to this in case study 1; 'regulation being part of the problem' and the NHS not having a statutory obligation 'to be honest with patients when things go wrong.'  So this comes comfortably into place with the Theoretical Approaches to Ethics in Reader 5. 
Immanual Kant being a Deontologist, although not religious would go with option 2 of my questions above. As it mentions in the reader, Kant argued 'that the only absolutely good thing is a good will', yet he believes that lying is always wrong. I must admit that I am completely shocked by Deontology as having a good will would always clash with not being able to tell a lie which I find quite audacious. So the good will doesn't need to be acted upon if lying is involved? Surely having a good will should mean that you should be thinking about the consequences. It's mind blowing that people can be this way.
A Consequentialist like JS Mill would go for option 1 of my questions. The outcome is more important than the actions that worked towards it. For this kind of situation I would have to agree that consequentialism is the best approach even though it's a sensitive subject when a child's safety is at stake. I would go with option 1 as well and would consider myself to be a religious (christian) consequentialist alongside being a Virtue Ethicist in the best possible way. 
My conscience is beyond me sometimes. As a christian I don't believe in lying, but the consequentialist in me would gladly put that aside if a child wanted to confide in me. It may mean losing the trust of this child, but it would gain respect after some time. What matters is the child's safety. 
It would seem that the system of the NHS and hospital in case study 1 is based on consequentialism but with the consequence being focused on the welfare of the staff rather than the patients.

The Greek Philosopher; Plato as spoken of in the Reader tries to understand '"good , with the assertion that there is no such thing as "hot" or "cold". Rather, it is seeming to be hot or cold to this man and that man.' (Reader 5) This is part of Comparitive Ethics. I see a connection here with the approaches in the two previous paragraphs. What the Deontologist sees as "good" a Conseqentialist may see as "bad", such as I believe that not thinking about the consequences is bad. I believe this is a part of Personal Ethics as it is based on certain personal values. But who's to say one Theoretical approach is better than the other? Every body has their values and what they believe is more important. Values are what makes a person either a Deontologist, Consequentialist, Virtue ethicist or a mixture of them all. 

In Ethics and Morals, the Reader gives some examples of practices that are acceptable in one culture but unacceptable in another. One being 'polygamy'. Naturally I can relate this wholly to my place of work being Catholic as Catholics do not believe in polygamy and actually condemn it."Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive."(Catechism of the Catholic church, paragraph 1645.) 
Below are the facts I found about Polygamy as seen in some other religions:
  • Judaism - Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility,
  • Islam -  In Islam, polygamy is allowed, with the specific limitation that a man can have four wives at any one time...The Qur'an clearly states that men who choose this route must deal with their wives justly.
  • Hinduism - The Indian Parliament made polygamy in any form illegal in India. Prior to 1955, polygamy was permitted for Indian Hindus.
  • Christianity -  The New Testament does not specifically address the morality of polygamy...but 1 Corinthians 7:2 states; "to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
It would seem that in Hinduism it doesn't state whether Polygamy is right or wrong so the laws make it their responsibility and what would seem morally right in marriage starting from their Personal Ethics right through to Organizational.
Lord Devlin argued that '..private behaviour should be regulated as in his opinion morality derived from Christianity.' (1959) I understand that the Hart-Devlin debate was based on homosexuality, but if Devlin's argument is right then has Hinduism been influenced by Christianity? I personally do not believe this.
When thinking about Ethics and Morals in my work place, although I am Christian there are certain things in the Catholic beliefs that I simply don't agree with, but as I've been told my the Headteacher of the school, Catholic, Christian or not at all, I am to support and encourage the ways and beliefs of the Catholic church. It's regulation against my own Personal ethics, but seeing as the religion is part of the Organizational ethics I have to put my beliefs aside to a certain level which is to work towards a better society within the school. I can connect this to Professional Ethics in the Reader with the Arena of professional practice figure below:



'..sometimes tensions can occur within this framework.' (Reader 5) So if I simply put my personal ethics (christian beliefs) before the professional code and/or employer's expectation I would cause problems or issues for myself and could end up as a  liability and cause a very unwelcome atmosphere. I could also get children in to trouble if I were to disrespect the school's procedures and ethos. I could say negative things about Catholicism or deny the beliefs that the children may have and teach them my beliefs instead. 
Relating to the Child protection policy mentioned earlier, if I were to go and promise to keep a secret to a child and then go straight to my superior on the matter, this could cause all sorts of tensions and issues regarding the framework of the policy/professional code.
Also looking at good attributes in professional ethics, to link to my current two jobs, here's what I came up with when focusing on having an effective and civil society:
  • Teaching assistant - Supportive
  •  Performing arts teacher - Encouraging and Fair-minded
As a teaching assistant being supportive is vital for civility for the children and adults. 
I wasn't able to choose between encouraging and being fair-minded for my performing arts teacher position. Being encouraging and fair-minded keeps the children focused and respectful and keeps the parents happy too, (apart from the parents who think their child should be the centre of attention at all times. There's always one.)
 
When handling ethics for my inquiry, I think that it's a good idea to look into the personal ethics first and foremost of the people in the performing arts business and parents of the children wanting to go to dance class or performing arts school.

 
'Keeeeeeep blogging' 

No comments:

Post a Comment