Different Perspectives on an Ethical Dilemma

Social work deals with individual and social problems, and situations that are, by definition, difficult and complex, hence the application of ethical theory is of great importance to social work because Social workers have a duty to rationalise their actions to ensure the best outcomes for the service users (Banks 1995 and Clark 2000). ‘Social workers encounter a wide variety of ethical dilemmas in practice…’ (Reamer 1983: 31) as they are working with an array of complex human issues, consisting of many variables with a variety of different possible outcomes.  It is, therefore, of great importance that social workers know the different ethical philosophies to aid the decision-making process and guide the social worker in making the best possible decisions for the benefit of the service users.  Hence, it is essential that social work students have a notable understanding of the different ethical perspectives because once qualified they will be required to formulate sound moral judgments and make ethical decisions as an essential part of their social work practice once in the field.  Therefore, this essay will discuss a personal count of a time where I have had to make an ethical decision whilst working in an older person’s safeguarding team, by utilising the three primary ethical perspectives in social work; Kant’s deontological ethics, Utilitarianism and Aristotle virtue ethics.   

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

The moral dilemma I have identified in the following question: Should I challenge a senior social workers decision on a possible safeguarding issue?  To clarify, a young woman had just presented herself to a district nurse, the young woman disclosed she had just left a verbally, physically and emotionally violent relationship and was returning home to her parents with her sister.   The nurse advised that this was not the young woman’s first abusive relationship and she felt a pattern was evolving.  The nurse explained, the young woman had already given birth to 2 children, one that had been taken into care a few years ago, and the other child was taken away at birth. The nurse stated the young woman had missed a custody hearing the day before and felt this was due to her partner not allowing her to attend. The nurse advised the young woman has a learning disability and felt this might constitute safeguarding.

The nurse and I had the same dilemma, was this a safeguarding or not? The general rules of safeguarding dictate domestic violence would only constitute safeguarding if the person at risk does not have the capacity to remove themselves from the situation. Hence I consulted with a senior social worker, who decided this was not safeguarding as the young woman was in a place of safety.

The fact that this young woman was not at immediate risk led the senior social worker’s decision in stating this was not safeguarding.  However, I had a feeling of unease regarding this decision, because I have learnt through experience that if someone has a learning disability, they may not consider the risk appropriately. Hence, after much reflection, I decided to challenge the senior social workers’ decision.  The following morning I went in to work early to discuss the case and my concerns with another senior social worker. This could have led to two different outcomes: me being disciplined for challenging a senior social worker’s decision or the young woman’s situation being highlighted to the community safeguarding team.

The first ethical perspective to be applied to this case is Kantian ethics; Kant’s work on ethics (deontological ethics) is the study of duty. Kant’s concept is formulated through the belief that people act through the principles that actions establish law, as he believed that people are rational beings that are bound by moral law and their own will. Due to this belief Kant stated moral law would become the duty and rules for all. Furthermore, Kant emphasised the duty and rules should be of benefit for the majority, and this duty should bring about the ‘greatest happiness’ for the majority (Johnson and Cureton 2018).   To clarify O’Neill (1994:178-185) stated Kant focused on the character, moral life, duty, and the freedom to make choices. Kant believed that in overall people act ethically which he referred to as conditional imperative (rule of self) and because we are all moral beings this moral action will be led to a ‘categorical imperative’ (rule of all) which can be turned into law.  He sets out the principles of moral behaviour based on his account of rational agency, and then on that basis defines virtue as a kind of power and resolve to act on those principles despite any temptations.  The theory, established as a product of Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that the only inherently good thing is goodwill; an action can only be good if the objective behind it is a duty to the moral law. Therefore, Kant’s ethical vision placed emphases is on the ethics of actions and not outcomes (O’Neill 1994).

In applying Kant’s deontological ethics, the action out of duty means following the code of ethics that all social workers must abide by. The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has formulated a code of ethics regarding the different duties that are relevant to the profession of social work. Therefore as the social worker that took the call and documented the conversation; the professional accountability was mine to bear. ‘Being professionally accountable Social workers should be prepared to account for and justify their judgements and actions to people who use services, to employers and the general public’(BASW 2014: 2).

Further justification for my actions from the Kantian perspective is in line with the categorical imperative.  The nature of social work is unpredictable as social workers are human beings working with human beings, therefore capable of human error regardless of education and experience, so challenging decisions from a place of reason should be embraced to ensure the best outcome for the service user.  Webb and McBeath (1989) argued that Kant’s account of the human capacity for reason makes us individual and equal; therefore, under Kantian ethics challenging or pointing out poor practice is ethically just as long as the challenger has a sound rational and respectfully approaches the topic.

The second ethical perspective to apply the case study to is Utilitarianism.  According to Vardy & Grosch (1999), Utilitarianism dominates the moral philosophy of our time because Utilitarianism focuses on the results and outcomes. This focus on the consequences of action relies upon the theory of intrinsic value as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill stated that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness. Therefore, whether actions should be classified as ethically right or wrong is dependent on the consequences, and the notion of the outcome should compel rather than persuade the service users to proceed favourably. 

Reamer (1983) advised Utilitarianism also assumes that it is possible to compare the inherent values that can be produced by two alternative actions to estimate which action would lead to the best outcome. Utilitarianism is an attempt to provide answers to the practical question of what should we do to ensure the best consequences/outcome possible whilst calculating the greater happiness/greater good, produced by the action that leads to the outcome.

In applying the case study Reamer (1983), advises bad practice and whistleblowing dilemmas can arise during the course of a social workers career, amongst both internal and external relationships.  BASW state social workers have an obligation to report bad practice or wrongdoing of professionals and colleagues, ‘Social workers should be prepared to report bad practice using all available channels including complaints procedures and if necessary use public interest disclosure legislation and whistleblowing guideline’ (BASW 2014:9).  Therefore, the utilitarian perspective would focus on the outcome of challenging bad practice. Reamer (1995) advised the act that creates the most amount of happiness for the majority should be treated as the ethical action required. Therefore, challenging bad practice should be considered as a duty when it is known that the consequences of non-disclosure will result in a negative impact.

Hence, by challenging the senior social worker, I ensured the best outcome for the service user and her family.  Whereas, if I had chosen not to challenge the senior social worker the service user would have been left at risk of returning to her abusive partner which would have left her family in distress and also put my job at risk.  Moreover, Reamer (1995) advised utilitarian’s highlights challenging bad practice as a social workers duty. Mill’s utilitarian principle of “do no harm” supports the idea that it is a duty; if non-disclosure of poor practice could cause “harm”, this principle determines that our actions should prevent “harm” to others. Therefore my action is challenging the senior social workers’ decision was ethical correct from the utilitarian perspective because I followed the rules set by the BASW and my actions led to the greatest happiness for the majority. 

Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our academic writing services

The third ethical perspective to apply to the case study is a virtue. According to Pullen-Sansfaçon and Cowden (2013) Virtue Ethics emphasises the person, for an individual to be virtuous their actions must come from a place of virtue within them.  Within Virtue ethics, Aristotle addresses the golden mean as the pathway between excess and absence. Pullen-Sansfaçon and Cowden (2013) described virtue as humanity at its best, virtue refers to the best traits of people, and human action and Aristotle believed that by people repeating actions they can become genuinely virtuous. To be virtuous, our actions are only fit if they are actions as a virtuous person would convey in the same situation and have a virtuous characteristic we must only act as a result of our rational thought. Aristotle believed these virtues to be nurtured and that to understand right from wrong is taught by parents, carers and schools. Therefore, a person who strives to live an ethical life will aim at acquiring a set of positive character traits, or personal qualities which help them to behave morally well at any given time (Hursthouse and Pettigrove 2016).

Virtue ethics involves acting positively to bring about good things such as justice, mercy or charity. The choices we make determine our habitual behaviour whether they be a virtue or a vice. Thus virtue ethics promote honesty, courage and empathy. However, a conflict with regards to challenging poor practice is between the virtue of loyalty and honesty (Bowden 2005).  Many social workers embarking on this path will often be faced with the dilemma of being truthful to one’s self or remaining loyal to one’s colleagues. Therefore, social workers have to balance their priorities between these two virtues and choose a side loyalty or honesty. I choose honesty because I would rather be scolded for trying to do the right thing than for doing nothing at all. For that reason, challenging poor practice is the right thing to do because it requires one to discuss any concerns openly, as it is through this open and honest discussion we can learn as social workers and social work students.  Furthermore, the challenging of poor practice can give the service user a voice that may otherwise be left unheard.  Consequently, I was virtuous in raising my concerns and challenging the senior social worker decision, because I took action after I had thought deeply over the consequence and decided to put the service users’ needs before my own despite the fact I could have been disciplined.

To conclude, this essay has outlined the main three ethical theories that are utilised in professional social work and applied them to a case study. However, the ethical principles cannot be fully understood without knowledge of their shortcomings. Each of the theories can contradict one another, therefore a social worker will need to look at each and decide which ethical perspective will lead to the best outcome for the service user.  McTavish (2010) advised that Kant’s early work was written with the view that humans are inherently good and we all have the same internal morals, Kant’s belief that humans are all good led to his faith that all human actions come from a good place because Kant thought goodwill as the only thing that is good without condition.  Hence, Kant’s ethical perspective would not account for manipulative, corrupt behaviour and would fail to take into consideration I could have been trying to humiliate the senior social worker to further my career. Kant also thought humans to be motivated by duty and not feelings or consequences and social work is heavily dominated by feelings and outcome, as social workers need to use their intuition to delve deeper into peoples life’s to ensure the best outcomes.  Also, challenging aspects of Kantian ethics can be seen regarding conflicts of duty as social workers have multiple. Therefore, they have to prioritise their duty to the service user against the duty to colleagues, statutory guidance and self.  (Hugman and Smith 1995)

Whereas, it is argued the utilitarian approach is too unpredictable as it is impossible to solely focus on the outcomes because the future cannot be accurately predicted.  Social workers have to account for many variables that impact on people, as both internal and external events can affect people life’s in a multitude of different ways, alongside the unpredictability of human nature, meaning outcomes can rarely be predicted as they never entirely turn out as planned (Banks and Gallagher 2009).

Furthermore, utilitarian ethics focuses is on the greatest happiness for the majority, whereas a social worker is more often working with people who are marginalised within society, such as with minority groups, and individuals that sit outside of the norm. Therefore utilitarianism fails to consider the dignity and rights of individuals actually within society. Additionally, Utilitarianism can justify crushing the rights of a vulnerable minority in order to benefit the majority (Reamer 2001:28). Hence, when applying utilitarian ethical theories to real-life situations within social work, may lead to social workers disenfranchising service users rather than empowering them (Downing 1989).

Moreover, although virtue ethics has a lot of attractive qualities, it falls short in the relentless optimism that people are primarily good. Virtue ethics relies on emotions being in harmony with rational thoughts to create the reason for action.  People may be able to recognise when they have made a mistake but are they courageous in owning up to mistakes because it would be un-virtuous to do so without full acceptance, and with no inner conflict (Bowden 2005).  Aristotle’s idea of virtue appears to omit imperfections, through the belief that there is something particularly good about people who succeed to act well when it is particularly hard for them to do so. For example when people find themselves in difficult circumstances, such as seeking help in times of crisis to restore oneself would be a virtuous act. However, neglecting to seek assistance could be deemed as an imperfection in her character when their actions may be less than virtues, (Bowles et al 2006).

Moreover, Clark (2000) and Bowles et al (2006) concur that Ethical principles are fundamental to social work because ethical issues have always been a dominant feature in social work.  Reamer (1998: 488 ) advised ‘The National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) recent ratification of a new code of ethics signals social workers remarkable progress in the identification and understanding of ethical issues in the profession’.  The difficulty remains in applying the ethical principles is still challenging, due to the complexity of human life and the fact that sometimes the ethical perspectives fall short in addressing the issues of the vulnerable minorities.  Additionally, social workers have the challenge of balancing the organisational ethics and values, while including the theoretical, ethical perspectives alongside their internal ethical values that may conflict with one another to ensure the best outcome for the service user.  Moreover, social workers professional values are not always dependable and can sometimes contradict one and other, and even a dependable set of values may not always be consistently applied in the working environment. Therefore it is imperative that in a multicultural society, social workers are engaged, mindful and continuously reflect to evaluate their professional values to work ethically in order to decide which ethical principle takes priority in any given situation.

References

• Banks, S. and Gallagher, A. (2009) Ethics in professional life: Virtues for health and social care. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Banks, S. (1995) Ethics and Values in Social Work. BASW, London: Macmillan.
• Bowden, P. (2005) Virtue Ethics, Aristotle and Organisational Behaviour. Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, 12th Annual Conference, Adelaide, 28–30
• Bowles, W. Collingridge, M. Curry, S. and Valentine, B (2006) Ethical practice in social work: An applied approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Clark, C. (2000). Social work ethics: Politics, principles and practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Downing, (1989) ‘A Political Critique of Kantian Ethics in Social Work: A Reply to Webb and McBeath; British Journal of Social Work, Vol.19.
• Hugman, R. and Smith, D. (1995) Ethical issues in social work (Professional ethics). London: Routledge.
• Hursthouse, R and Pettigrove, G. (2016) “Virtue Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [online] available from <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-virtue/ > [31 October 2018]
• Johnson, R and Cureton, A. (2018) “Kant’s Moral Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [online] available from <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/kant-moral/>[31 October 2018]
• McTavish, C. (2010) “An Experiential Approach to Kant’s Moral Philosophy: A Reply to Dogmatism, Formalism and Rigorism” Dissertations.
• O’Neil, O. (1994) Kantian ethics In: Singer P ed (2000). A companion to ethics. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell,
• Pullen-Sansfacon, A. and Cowden, S. (2012) The Ethical Foundations of Social Work, Harlow: Pearson.
• Reamer, F. (2001) Tangled Relationships: Managing Boundary Issues in the Human Services, Columbia University Press: New York.
• Reamer F (1998) The Evolution of Social Work Ethics, Social Work, Volume 43, Issue 6, 1
• Reamer, F. (1983) Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice. Social Work, 28(1), 31-35.
• Reamer, F. (1995) Social work values and ethics. New York, Chichester: Columbia
• The British Association of Social Workers. (2014) Code of Ethics.  [online] available from <https://www.basw.co.uk/about-basw/code-ethics> [25 November 2018]
• Vardy, P. and Grosch, P. (1999). Puzzle of ethics (Rev. ed.). London: Fount.
• Webb, S. and Mcbeath, G. (1989), ‘The Political Critique of Kantian Ethics in Social Work, British Journal of Social Work, Vol.19, pp.491- 506.