Culture, Values and Ethics in Social Work by Hugman Richard;

Author:Hugman, Richard; [Richard Hugman]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 1024577
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group

Professional ethics and value pluralism

In the most comprehensive internationally comparative study of social work professional ethics that has been undertaken, Banks (2006) looks at a form of pluralism in her discussion of ‘common morality’ in professional ethics. This idea is taken from bioethics, specifically the arguments of Beauchamp and Childress (2009; compare with Banks, 2006, pp. 39 ff., who cites an earlier edition of this work), in whose view the health professions have developed an applied ethics that brings together elements of deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Instead of looking at values, Beauchamp and Childress focus on four principles a synthesis of which forms the basis of ethics in the biomedical field: autonomy; beneficence; non-maleficence; justice. These can be summarized in the following way. Autonomy here concerns respect for the capacities of people to make choices based on their own values. Beneficence reflects the goal of maximizing benefits and as far as possible minimizing risks, while non-maleficence (also known as ‘non-malfeasance’) has a long history in the form of ‘seeking to do no harm’. Justice, in this model, focuses specifically on fairness in the distribution of benefits and risks. Having reviewed this approach, Banks (2006, pp. 42 ff.) then compares it with the main influences in social work ethics as deriving from Kantian deontology, utilitarianism and what she calls ‘radical’ principles. Drawing on Beauchamp and Childress’ concept of ‘common morality’, Banks argues that these three approaches are synthesized in social work and each make a contribution to the profession’s ethics. Elsewhere Banks also applies the same analysis to human services, community work, health professions and youth work (Banks, 2004; Butcher et al., 2007; Banks & Gallagher, 2009; Banks, 2010). Deontology and utilitarianism have been explained elsewhere in this book; by ‘radical’ here Banks is referring to the concept that what it is to be human is socially structured and so it is necessary to consider ethics and values from a social perspective rather than relying on individualist liberal ideas that underpin other modern approaches to ethics. In some respects, in Banks’ discussion utilitarianism and radicalism have strong similarities, for example in their emphasis on justice and utility in their deliberations. At the same time, deontology and radical ethics share a concern with human rights, while deontology and utilitarianism have a common respect for the value of people as individuals. Thus the three approaches stand as a ‘tripod’ of principles on which contemporary social work and human services practices are located.

Drawing on other writers, such as Clark (2000), Banks (2006, p. 47) notes that at the more applied level of ethical codes, ethical terminology and focus within social work and human services can vary. At times concepts such as ‘citizenship’ (seen as the right to receive services) may be identified, in other places ‘promotion of welfare’ is seen as a central principle, and at other times there is a concern with ‘service’ (including integrity, competence and the like). (It is important to recognize that service here has to be seen as

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.