Six Ethical Approaches Used In Today's Society

The two major ethical considerations that are important to address are 9.02 - Use of Assessments and 9.06 - Interpreting Assessment Results. 9.02 - Use of Assessments is particularly important because the psychologist must consider the individual’s language preference and competence. As was noted in the initial case description, Brandon’s parents are both Polish immigrants, and Brandon spoke Polish in home until he attended junior kindergarten. Although he may not have an accent, his language preference should be noted as English may not be the language he is more comfortable using. 9.06 - Interpreting Assessment Results should also be considered. Brandon’s test-taking abilities should be highlighted, as he is suspicious and ambivalent towards the psychological testing. These feelings may negatively affect his test scores, as he may try to either hide how he truly feels, or lie to make himself seem better or worse. It should also be noted that there could be other client characteristics that affect his scores as well, particularly cultural factors.

Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, also came up with his own three sets of rule of justice, which sort of go against what John Rawls argues. Nozick in his book “Anarchy, state and Utopia” argues about distribution of property and states justice in three ideas, which are justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and rectification of injustice. Justice in acquisition is finding a place, property or object and calming your rights over it before anyone else does. Justice in transfer is how you got a certain property or object by an exchange with another person. Rectification of injustice is giving someone back what he or she deserves in case you have claimed it when it was not yours. Nozick’s theory of justice claims that whether a distribution is just or not, it depends entirely on how it came about. The maximin principle states that “to rank alternatives by their worst possible outcomes; we are to adopt the alternative the worst outcome of which is

Patient confidentiality is one thing that cannot be breached nor as a patient that you would want to be breached. In this day and age as healthcare professionals it is a very fine line of what breaching confidentiality is. We all want to know that when we are sick and in the hospital, the one thing that we can keep personal is our privacy which would include our health information. It is hard to imagine that in a state of vulnerability that some things must be disclosed to certain departments regardless of your desire to keep it private

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to act on behalf of the interests of young children. The NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct offers guidelines for responsible behavior and sets forth a common basis for resolving the principal ethical dilemmas encountered in early childhood care and education promoting a commitment to integrity, veracity, fairness, and human dignity at all levels; nevertheless, further research and/or developments may change the current code and state of knowledge. NAEYC have a Statement of Commitment; however, isn’t part of the organization’s Code of Ethics; instead, it is used as a tool, for personal acknowledgement of an individual's willingness to

One of the important tasks of supervisors and educators in the human service fields is to provide their fieldwork students with models of appropriate ethical behavior and decision-making. The ethical training that educators provide to students in the helping professions will greatly influence how prepared students feel to navigate through difficult ethical situations when they arise in the field. The goal of this article is to introduce a conceptual framework of "Top 5 Ethical Lessons" for the human service professions that is currently in use by social work and school psychology faculty at a large urban university. Training in the "Top 5" Lessons allows graduate students to come away with a new skill set of engaging in the dialogue of ethical

John Rawls was an American political and moral philosopher. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice. In this essay, I will elucidate John Rawls’ views on forming a social contract, the counter-arguments against Rawls’ theory and finally the state of debate on the counter-arguments. John Rawls set out on his discussion on justice and fairness in his book A Theory of Justice 1971. Rawls theory describes a society with free citizens holding equal basic rights regardless of the social status (poor or rich). Each society has its way of attempting to bring about equality in its political and economic systems. The tenets of distributive justice, therefore, act as an ethical guide to the

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that holds the morally right course of action in any given situation is the course of which yields the greatest balance of benefits over harms. More specifically, utilitarianism’s core idea is that the effects of an action determine whether actions are morally right or wrong. Created with the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Utilitarianism began in England in the 19th Century. Bentham and Mill built their system of Utilitarianism on ancient hedonism (pursuing physical pleasure and avoiding physical pain). Although both of these philosophers agreed on the basic principals of Utilitarianism they disagreed on what exactly hedonism is.

There are 6 ethical approaches in the book Justice by Michael J. Sandel: Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, Locke, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle. These 6 approaches attempt to explain what should just and what should not.

Utilitarianism is often described as an ethical doctrine were virtues are based on utility, and were conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. In other words an action will always be right if it tends to increase happiness, and wrong if it tends to decrease happiness, always avoiding the greatest amount of unhappiness. In Episode two Michael Sandel discuss an exciting topic in which I believe are direct objections to the utilitarian principle, first he ask; can we put a price tag on life? And secondly, how do we measure pleasure? By analyzing this two question you can quickly observed the depth of this topic.

Sandel’s Justice addresses three ideas that constitute a “just” society; maximizing welfare, freedom, and virtue

In video 2, Sandel discuss the issue of whether there are values to everything, some believe that not everything have a price while some believe that there has to be a value for everything in order for people to decide which lead to more happiness. Then on part 2 he further discusses that whether there are distinction between higher pleasure and lower pleasure? This issue started with the discussion of utilitarianism who was founded by Jeremy Bentham. Jeremy Bentham believe that the greatest good is for an individual or a politician is to maximize the community’s happiness, therefore before making policy, law or even saying what is just or not, the individual and politician should consider comparing the cost and benefit to maximize happiness.

It is structured to be a fair and unbiased point of view that is to help in making judgments on matters of the fundamental principles of justice Rawls. For an individual to take up this position of neutrality there must be a veil of ignorance that hinders one from looking at the people based on their societal status or amount of wealth (Rawls, 2009). All the people have similar characteristics from this original position, and therefore they can be given a neutral treatment based on their level of need and not material wealth or status in the society. Rawls lectures that the decision making by the parties at an original position are rational choices that follow two principles of justice (Rawls, 2009). The first principle ensures equal fundamental rights and liberties that are required to provide the fair treatment. The second one gives room for equality in the access to the various opportunities that individuals

Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).

"Our results indicate that the informal methods ("manager sets an example" or "social norms of the organization") are likely to yield greater commitment with respect to both employee attitudes than formal methods ("training courses on the subject of ethics") (Adam, et al, 2004).

1. Explain in detail the decisive question of ethical theory and the classical and modern answers to this question.