ETHICAL THEORIES AND
SOCIAL WORK
Heidrun Wulfekuehler
Osnabrück, Heilpädagogische
Hilfe Osnabrück e.V.
Osnabrück, Germany
Introduction
This article will critically examine
the place of three key ethical theories for social work. Before examining these
three ethical theories that can be employed in solving ethical dilemmas and/or
problem laden situations in social work, we must be clear as to why ethics apply
to social work at all.
It could be argued that social work
is strictly a technical profession, and that practitioners merely apply the various
methods of intervention which they have acquired through training. However, the
point of view taken here is that ethical considerations are always
substantially involved in social work practice and even constitute the founding
grounds for it. Without ethical considerations and presuppositions there would
be no social work in the first place.In
the following, three central ethical dimensions will be given, without,
however, claiming to be all-encompassing.
The Political Dimension
On this level, questions such as the following
apply, “How does society position itself towards existing problems? Do we take
responsibility for them as a community? Do we ignore them? Do we acknowledge
them, but ascribe the guilt and/or responsibility to those who experience the
problems (perhaps because we consider them to be morally at fault and deserving
of their situation)?” Further, each social worker must make a decision as to
whether to stand up to her
accountability within the political dimension. Ultimately, she is accountable
on that level as well, whether or not she acknowledges it. Political
responsibility is inherent in the social work profession. Social workers are
not merely to act technically within the boundaries set by laws implemented in
society, but they are to actively shape the society within which they are
working. They are committed to human rights and to a certain view of the world,
thereby also accepting their responsibility within this greater realm. This is
the case, even though this might not be obvious to each and every social worker
in everyday practice.
The Individual Dimension
On this level, the social worker must ask
herself whom she needs to consider in deciding what to do as a social worker.
There are many people, institutions, and ideologies to whom the social worker
owes consideration, i.e., the client with whom she is working, the people
connected with the client, the public providing the money for the service, the
agency the social worker is working for, the relevant code of ethics, the agency’s
rules and regulations, etc.
The Essential Individual Dimension
This dimension might sound strange at first
– Which “essential” part was left out in the previous section “individual
dimension”? The essential individual dimension refers to what a social worker believes,
feels and thinks personally. What should she do when her personal professional
beliefs clash? Should she ignore her personal thoughts and beliefs?
The personal views one holds cannot be “silenced” when working and dealing
with values, beliefs and ethical decision making. We are, and must essentially
be, involved as a whole person in order to make ethically sound decisions,
because this is a substantial feature of who we are as human beings.
Essentially, moral accountability cannot be trumped by a role that a person
takes on, substituting and overruling her own personal moral responsibility
with another code and set of rules developed for this role specifically.
Put bluntly, what would that look
like, i.e., a strict separation between the personal and the professional? How
would one know when a “personal” thought enters the inner debate about values,
ethical choices, etc.? The separation between personal and professional values
could not be a clear one, since our thinking about values is deeply embedded in
our being, and one must influence the other. They are unrecognizably
intertwined.
However, let me stress that this
does not mean that careful reflection about personal values is not possible.
Likewise, acting according to professional standards is necessary and possible.
Acknowledging that ethical thinking and decision making is such a core feature of
our lives, personally and professionally, makes it mandatory to develop a high sensitivity
to these issues within the professional realm.
As part of these
considerations, in the following I will consider three key theories which can
aid in the development of such sensitivities.
THREE ETHICAL
THEORIES
Immanuel
Kant: Deontological Ethics
Kant referred to the “supreme moral law” by
which each and every rational creature was to guide their lives. To Kant, the
moral law was an absolute. The question of what is the right thing to do is
entirely independent of the consequences of the action. Doing what is right is
a matter of following what the law tells us to do.
The moral law, the categorical imperative, is expressed in five formulae. Here,
only three of the five will be considered, as these contain the core ideas of
Kantian moral philosophy.
1. Formula of universal law
“Act only according to
that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.”
When engaging in any action, you must always
see this action in a wider context: what would happen if this action was to
apply as a solution for anyone in this world in similar circumstances? Would
you want people to act like that in all places at all times? In a sense you
must see yourself as a potential legislator at anytime. Do you live up to that
responsibility in your actions?
Kant stated that when we do not act in this
way, we do not actually will that everyone in the world will act like this, but
we allow ourselves to be the exception. We actually acknowledge that another
action would be the right one and that we are doing something wrong, but we permit
ourselves to do so for whatever seemingly plausible reason we give ourselves (e.g.,
“I will lie this time, so that she won’t be so upset!”).
2. Formula of the end in itself
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time
as an end and never simply as a means.”
An “end” or “end in itself” is what is
sufficient all by itself. It needs no external justification for being, but
demands respect for what it is without external reference. This is what we are
as persons. It is unchangeable. We are always and forever the kind of beings
who have inherent worth, no matter where we are, what we have done, what we
own, what we represent, where we come from, and so forth.
A “means”, on the other hand, is a tool: we use
it when we need it (e.g., money is a means to buy food, it does not have
inherent worth). This also means when we do not need it, it has lost any value
for us (if tomorrow we decide to no longer attribute exchange value for money,
the metal and pieces of paper will be worthless). We can ignore it or just
throw it away. As rational beings we may never be treated as a means only.
3. Formula of the kingdom of ends
“A rational being belongs to the kingdom of
ends as a member when he legislates in it universal laws while also being
himself subject to these laws. He belongs to it as a sovereign, when as a
legislator he is himself subject to the will of no other.”
Kant explained that as rational beings we are
ultimately free: by employing reason, we discover the supreme moral law, which
is objectively there. It is not something we create in our minds, but there
regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. It is the absolute guiding rule
for how we ought to act. If you deny this, Kant would say that you have not
discovered the central feature of your being, namely reason, and further that
you are still subject to your inclination and desires. You are thus not a free
being and not fulfilling your true purpose in life.
This law is not forced upon us by external forces,
but it is discovered by reason. When we use reason and manage to make it our
main guiding force in our actions, we see that we want to follow this law. It
is then freely chosen, because it fulfills what we substantially are as the
beings that we are. “Kingdom of ends” means that all rational beings are in the
same boat: each of us discovers the moral law, each of us knows that she needs
to treat other rational beings with respect because each has inherent worth and
each knows that she deserves to be treated with respect herself. We are all
free and equal in this sense. Each of us is an end in itself.
Valuable aspects for social work
Valuable aspects for social work may be listed
as follows:
·
Recognize
and respect the inherent worth of each human being.
- Take care of yourself. Do not
forget that you are obliged to treat yourself as an end in itself as well
and thus are obliged to treat yourself with respect.
- Consider your actions and their
impact from a universal standpoint. The next law might be up to you.
Questionable aspects
Questionable aspects
include the following:
- The view is too strict: following the law
can sometimes entail that we show disregard towards other people. It looks
as though the law is the most important thing irrespective of why it was
needed in the first place: to tell us how we ought to act in order to
treat people the way they deserve to be treated. Kant’s view looks as
though the most important thing is to serve a principle.
- Living life from duty: there seems to be
no room for happiness and pleasure – Is this how people live their
lives?
- From Kant’s view it looks like as though
each person is a “moral island”, each struggling with discovering her
essential being (rational) and, from there, trying to discover what would
be the right action to take. Yet what about our emotions? I suggest that
often we initially sense that there is a moral dilemma not because of a
rational thought, but because there is a strong feeling attached to the
situation, which seems to push us into beginning to reflect about the
issues at stake. The question I would like to raise is this: Is the
rational thought about a situation the starting point? Alternatively, is
it to be sought within the emotional realm?
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarian
Rule Ethics
In contrast to Kant, Mill’s moral
philosophy takes into account the consequences of an action in deciding about
the right moral action. The so-called “Greatest Happiness Principle” says:
An
action is morally right when it leads to greatest good for the greatest number
and when it minimizes or prevents pain for the greatest number of people
involved!
Whether or not an action is morally
right is not dependent on whether or not one has followed a rule/law (as we saw
with Kant), but whether or not the outcome of the action contributes to the
maximization of happiness and the minimization of pain for the greatest number
of people involved. This means that in each situation we have to look closely
at the specifics of the case. Mill distinguished the action from the agent. An
action can be right even if the agent acts from ulterior motives. The moral
character of the agent is a distinct issue to Mill.
There are many important qualifications
to be made to properly understand the utilitarian principle in the way Mill
proposed it. First, Mill had something very specific in mind when referring to
pleasure/happiness: He connected it with the human faculty of reason (like
Kant). Mill said that humans have the capacity to develop into higher beings,
by employing reason. Happiness/pleasure is thus not a hedonistic concept, but
it is linked with an idea of universal and absolute truth. Mill would reject
that “anything goes” as long as we think we have a good time.
Secondly, Mill had a very
communitarian idea – he linked the good/happiness of the individual with
that of the community and argued that it was not possible for one to feel happy
at the expense of the whole.
Thirdly, Mill insisted on taking
into account the long-term versus the short-term consequences of an action.
Even if something looked as though it would maximize pleasure to a great extent
in the short run, the action would be considered to be morally wrong if the
consequences were bad in the long run. This demands careful reflection about
each situation, which Mill thought possible since humans have a long history
from which they can learn.
Valuable aspects for social work
Valuable aspects for social work may be listed
as follows:
- Public
responsibility is inherent in social work. Social workers do not merely
work in the interests of individuals, but are connected with the broader
community and need to acknowledge their responsibility within this realm.
- It is important to consider the “real” interests and concerns of
those who are involved.
- Human beings can improve their world if
they fully develop their capacities.
Questionable aspects
Questionable aspects
include the following:
- Is it possible to calculate people’s “happinesses”?
This in itself requires that we make value judgments about what is more
worthy and important to consider.
- Mill says that there is a common and absolute understanding of
happiness. If we employ our faculty of reason and all other faculties we
have, then we will arrive at a state of enlightened and superior notion of
what it means to live a good life. Is this true? Furthermore, how do we
deal with cultural differences? What about societies where happiness and
pleasure are not seen as important?
Aristotle:
Virtue Ethics
According to Aristotle, an action is right when
it is done with the right motive and when it is done by a person who is a good
person.
Moreover, the person who develops herself into the kind of being who does what
is virtuous will live well, since she will live according to the purpose of
human beings (strive for happiness).
To determine whether an action is right it is essential to look at what kind of
person is engaging in the action. The outcome of an action is not the decisive
feature, but the motive from which the agent engages in the action. An action
is good/virtuous when it is done by a person who is virtuous. Aristotle thought
that the ultimate reason why we engage in any action is to attain happiness.
To be a good/virtuous person is not easy.
Aristotle emphasized that it was not enough to do something good once and to
then somehow receive the “label” and status of being good, thereafter being
able to show it off like a medal. He saw it as a never-ending process and activity:
if you do not use it you will lose it. The idea of “habit” is central to this,
as you can only develop yourself into a “virtuous person” through habit: “For
the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them,
[...] so too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate
acts, brave by doing brave acts.”
To illustrate this idea of habit and pleasure
in doing what is right, I will turn to an analogy of a person training to
become a long-distance runner. When starting, training seems to be pure torture
and one does not know why one goes through with it. At some point something
changes: there is a moment where one begins to enjoy it and the running is no
longer an effort, but is instead something that one needs in order to feel good
and to thrive as a person. At this point running has become the person’s
“second skin”. However, if the long-distance runner stops training and instead
sits on the couch every day, eating all sorts of bad food, she no longer can be
considered a long-distance runner, even though for a long time she has been
running regularly. By no longer engaging in the activity, she has lost all
claims to being what she would be through the activity and she will likewise
lose all pleasure in running. If she starts again, it will at first be an unpleasant
experience. This is the same for virtues: When you engage in virtuous
activities, you will turn yourself into the kind of being who does virtuous
activities and you will start to enjoy it.
Valuable aspects for social work
Valuable aspects for social work may be listed
as follows:
- Reflect closely and carefully on your
actions. Consider what kind
of a person you are, what kind of actions you engage in and what kind of a
person you want to be. Developing virtues will imply that the person, who is a social
worker, will turn into a particular kind of being (honest, trustworthy,
competent, caring, dependable, conscientious, etc.).
- Be consistent and authentic in your life. Essentially,
the private person cannot be separated from the professional. We would
corrupt ourselves as people by doing what is essentially contrary to that
which we do professionally. There has to be an essential soundness, since
everything we do plays into what we are as a whole person. Splitting
ourselves into a “professional” and a “private” person does not work. This
is not to say that there should not be professional standards.
Questionable aspects
Questionable aspects
include the following:
- Does it make sense to not separate the
action from the agent? In the social work context, the persons affected by
an action might not care at all about the motives of the agent and whether
or not a virtuous person engaged in the action. It is part of her ethical
obligation to consider whom she will affect, how, and by what she does,
and this is an important consideration aside from deliberating about what
action she should engage in to act from virtue.
- The questionable aspect is at the same
time a strength: virtue ethics might be hard to follow at all times to solve
ethical dilemmas in social work, but what they can help with is to keep
the social worker reflecting carefully about her actions and herself. The
demand to be sensitive towards one’s own feelings, beliefs and thoughts
could be fulfilled by taking the attitude proposed by Aristotle as
presented here.
CONCLUSION
The theories here presented do not
provide clear-cut answers and they are not tools that will allow practitioners
to “simply” apply them in order to know what to do. Doubts and uncertainties will
always remain a part of ethical decision making. We must live with this
situation and accept that making ethical choices implies a never-ending
struggle. Still, the theories can help to support us through this struggle: they
are crutches by which we can make our way through the often unsteady terrain.
The point made by the three thinkers discussed in this paper is that ethical
decision making is an essential and necessary feature of being human and that,
in fact, we can manage to deal with this task – this is perhaps a truth
about us, the first certainty from where to start the endeavour.
References
Aristotle (2001) The Basic Works of Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. Ed. by
Richard McKeon. New York: Modern Library.
Kant, Immanuel (1993) Grounding for the
Metaphysics of Morals: On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic
Concerns. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Mill, John Stuart (1979) Utilitarianism. Ed. by George
Sher. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
