After reading through course reader 5 on Proffesional Ethics, my inital thoughts are to the three theorists; Aristotal, immanuel Kant and JS Mill, and whether i believe or practice their therories both in my personal and professional life.
Aristotals belief was in virues of character-bad habits/trates within a person, the list below is one of my own identified virtues as well as what i belive to be virtues that chickenshed carry:
Me
Impatience
negative assumption
need for control
Chickenshed
inability to openly acknowledge the negative
insufficent funds for new developing staff
these lists are short, although no reference to say they are? but i found them extremely difficult to complile. Attempting to negativly pick apart my own nature and the subject matter that i am so passionate about that left me emotions in dilemma.My argument to aristotal would be that as the nature of individuals very so much, what if, for an individual the acknowldgement of virtues could not exist? do we then ask others to evalute? or should it be a 'self comfessing' exercise?
'Lying is wrong no matter what the circumstance.' Immanual Kant (1779 )
I think this statement is one that could cause a major contoversy, especially in today's society in terms of its harsh phrasing. Everything in today's society has to now be put on a scale or spectrum due to the sheer diverity of the makeup of our communities.
proffession
crime
religion
race
gender
age
sexuality...these listed are all compnents of society that inform descions and lives on an even broader scale in 2011 than at the time of Kant's statement in 1779.
'Blanket' statements such as his are of the age of 'tick boxes' and 'pigeon holes' a system that insitiutions such as chickenshed are continuoulsy trying to extinguish.
'The mean jusifies the end' JS MILL (1861)
This theory is one that, in my personal life i am aware that i put into practice, for example: in order to fund my placement at Chickenshed i work at a job that i dont partucularly enjoy or want to do. However, i know that in doing this work the money i make will benefit me in the end ie: i can afford to be unpaid at a charity at the busiest times because i save my wages in order to fudn my time when there is no time to work. This job as i see it is a means to end. I am aware that JS MILL probably had a more extreme example to be used but that is my understanding of the statement.
Interms of Chickenshed, however, i am struggling to decide whether this is statment they would use in practice..linking back to my quesion in my blog
http://emmabalaam.blogspot.com/2011/02/task-4a-my-questions.html :
'At what point does the process' of running a charity ever hinder the charity's intent/beliefs? if ever?'
After reading the Kevin Carter photography case it raised a number of quesions for my thinking:
How far will be go before the decion arrises whether to comply with ethics or save a human life?
should be stick by the rules if our own life is in danger regardless of another person if sickness is involved?
is it selfish to consider ourselves? or is it selfish to not think of our own lives and our own implications?
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the context of Chickenshed it is in my oppinion that Morals and Practice go hand in hand. The combination of;
HUMAN NATURE + RECOGNISED STRUCTURE + FOWARD PLANNING =
IMPLENTATION OF MORAL PRACTICE
However, when allowing morality to inform practically how far will/ can they go?
this question links back to one used in my interview pilot
How far does the individual's requirements affect the outcome of work before it become unbalanced?
My understanding of ethics within profession is that the ethics are there to ensure that each profession as a positive effect on society. A contrusctive critism of Chickenshed's work would be to expand their knowledge deeper and further into scoiety so that is a more accesable way of thinking/source of knowlege.
No comments:
Post a Comment