Design an Ethical Framework

Question Description

Design an Ethical Framework

[img alt="A young professional man writing on a document while thinking. " src="" height="350" width="258">You have been presented several frameworks for ethical decision making in the online essays and the readings from your text.

In this written assignment you will choose one of these ethical frameworks, giving your rationale for making this choice. You must cite sources from the course readings. Do not simply list the NOHSE standards that apply to each responsibility. The NOHSE standards certainly should be apart of the paper but, I want your individual thoughts and ideas; demonstrating an understanding of the material presented.  Your paper should include a preamble explaining your ethical stance including its basic ethical or religious perspective (Deontological, Teleological, Religious, or Postmodern) and the point of view of the theorist, religious figure, or philosophy you have chosen. The main body of the paper should address the following ethical areas: your responsibility to: yourself, those who are close to you (your own family, friends, etc.), all of your potential clients (including individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities), your colleagues, your agency or other employer, and society as a whole. It should conclude with a summary the steps you plan to use in making ethical decisions using this framework.

The paper should be concise, but complete. APA formatting should be used for citations.

Your paper should use the following general format. (Note: Review NOHSE/COSHE standards in the next module for a good pattern to follow.)

  • Title page
  • Preamble
  • Responsibilities to yourself
  • Responsibilities to clients
  • Responsibilities to your community
  • Responsibilities to society
  • Responsibilities to colleagues
  • Responsibilities to agency or employer
  • Summary of steps to be taken in ethical decision making
  • References (in APA format)
NOTE: I am a christian and I believe in God, living my life the right way and accord to his will. The responsibility to myself is to be true, honest and to always put him first(God). The responsibility to the clients are to service them with services to my best ability. Responsibility to society is by servicing the clients in the community to make the society a better place. To continue on with my ba degree in social work to make this a better place. Responsibility to colleagues is to be a good co work and be a team player. Responsibility to agency is to be a good employer and best the best i can be. The agency is Volunteers of America by the way. This is the direction i want the paper to go in. It should be about 3 pages please answer all the questions accordingly.

ethical decision making esc.docx

Religious framework esc.docxethics esc.docx

The NOHSE/CSHSE Ethical Framework


Since the ethical guidelines for both human services and social work are similar and simply because SUNY/Empire State College offers human services rather than social work concentrations, we will be using the NOHSE (National Organization of Human Service Educators)/CSHSE (Council for Standards in Human Service Education) guidelines in this course as the principal framework for exploring professional ethics.

Structure of the NOHSE Guidelines

The NOHSE guidelines are clearly divided into several parts. The "Preamble" begins to define human services as a profession among other helping professions and defines the need for ethical standards. Section I, "Standards for the Human Service Professional" defines the settings in which human service workers are found and briefly defines the various roles played by human service professionals. The main body of Section 1 consists of 37 statements that apply to all human service professionals. Nine of these statements define human service professionals responsibility to clients. For the purpose of the Guidelines the term "client" is broadly defined to include individuals, families, groups, and communities. Eleven statements refer to the human service professionals responsibility to the community and society. Four statements define the human service worker's responsibility to colleagues, six define responsibilities to employers, and the final three define responsibilities to self. Section II, "Standards for Human Service Educators" consists of a brief summary and seventeen additional statements. Section II calls human service educators to adhere to the standards defined for human service professionals and, in addition, recognizes that most human service educators come to the field from other disciplines such as social work and counseling. The guidelines call for educators to adhere to the highest ethical standards of their respective disciplines and, in addition, to create educational programs that will enable their students to develop the knowledge, skills, values, and applied skills needed to function effectively in a wide variety of settings. SUNY/Empire State College, Center for Distance Learning, follows the NOHSE guidelines. This course follows them closely.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Book - Ethical Decision-Making 1 Principles of Ethical Decision Making This institute has many resources useful for the study of ethics in social affairs: Principles of Ethical Decision Makingtext (c) 2005 Joyce S. McKnightAcademic Area Coordinator, Community and Human ServicesCenter for Distance Learning, SUNY/Empire State College This course is primarily about solving ethical dilemmas or making decisions when "right strives with right" or "wrong with wrong." We begin by re-visiting some philosophical terms associated with ethics. Deontology refers to ethical decisions made based on principles of right and wrong that are universal and absolute (Reamer, 2013, p. 70). One's choice of absolute authority is the key basis for deontologic decision making. Some examples of absolute authority include secular laws, biblical injunctions such as the Ten Commandments, other sacred writings such as the Koran, or consultation with a human authority figure who is given ultimate control. It is fair to say that all religious fundamentalism is based primarily on a deontological view of morality and is also based on a natural human need for certainty. Those who use a deontological framework are largely free (at least in their own minds) from agonizing over ethical decisions. In deontology wrong means never justify admirable ends. Teleology, on the other hand, emphasizes the consequences of action whether or not the action itself is ordinarily judged to be "good" or "bad" in some absolute sense. Teleologists believe that to adhere to a rule or law absolutely without taking consequences into account is to deify it (Reamer, 2013, p. 70). Teleologists recommend that one decide on a course of action based on the likely consequences of various choices, choosing based on overriding principles or values (Reamer, 2013, p. 71). The books in this module cover teleological frameworks mainly derived from Western rationalism, religious frameworks based on several of the world's great religions, and post-modern ethics. Read each section carefully. 2 Teleological Frameworks in Human Service Ethics Teleological Frameworks in Human Service Ethics(c) 2005, 2007 Joyce S. McKnightAcademic Area Coordinator Community and Human ServicesCenter for Distance LearningSUNY/Empire State College Reamer (1999) reviews some possible teleological frameworks that are mostly based in a Eurocentric view of ethical decision making. Egoism (which is rarely found in human services) is based on the principle that when faced with ethical dilemmas (also called conflicting duties), people should always choose to maximize their own good and enhance their own self-interest (p. 66). Utilitarianism states that when faced with an ethical choice one should do what will produce the greatest good (p. 66). There are two principal forms of utilitarianism. Good-aggregate utilitarianism bases ethical choice on the action that will produce the greatest total "good" (with "good" defined according to the values of the decision maker) (p.67). Locus-aggregate utilitarianism bases ethical decisions on the action that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number (p.67). In human services practice these two approaches conflict fairly frequently. It is easy to imagine situations in which a few individuals may gain a great deal from a particular course of action while many others may be harmed or at least not helped. In fact, such dilemmas are common in human service management where choices must be made about the use of scarce resources. Those using the good-aggregate decision making model would argue that it is better to use limited resources to help a few people thoroughly than to distribute limited resources over a large number of people and be unable to help anyone very much. Those using the locus-aggregate model would argue that justice requires equally sharing limited resources among all those eligible for services, even if that means "watering down" program quality. In addition to the good aggregate v. locus aggregate dichotomy in utilitarianism, some philosophers argue that a differentiation should be made between act and rule utilitarianism (Reamer, 1999, p. 67). In act utilitarianism the morality of a decision or action is based on the consequences for the individual case (p. 67). In rule utilitarianism morality is determined by the likely results if such behavior generalizes from the case at hand to society at large (p. 67). Rule utilitarians look carefully at whether their actions may set a harmful precedent. Rule utilitarianism seems similar to Kant's categorical imperative which bases ethical decision making on the consideration of the logical consequences if one's behavior were to be copied by all persons in all circumstances. Most people consciously or unconsciously probably use a form of utilitarianism. We base our acts on our personal values, on our family upbringing, on our cultural context, on professional guidelines, on political ideologies or on religious principles or even sometimes on whim or expediency. One obvious problem with utilitarianism is that these clashing values can cause internal conflict within the decision maker. The theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it eloquently: "Right strives with right and wrong with wrong." Another problem with utilitarianism is that good people can disagree, sometimes violently, on decision making principles and processes. 3 Reamer's Framework While Reamer sees no easy way out of this quandary, he does propose a decision making framework for prioritizing ethical decisions based on the thinking of philosopher Alan Gerwith (Reamer, 1999, p. 69). Reamer has devised a decision making framework based on Gerwith's principles. This framework is important, particularly in social work, but it seems difficult to "un-pack" or put into practical terms. I intend to try. Reamer's framework is based on Gerwith's concept of various "goods" ...not material possessions which the term "goods" often implies in common usage, but something more abstract, which might be defined as conditions which constitute a "good" life. Gerwith distinguishes among basic goods, i.e. the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, protection from harm etc., non-subtractive goods, whose loss would detract from one's ability to pursue a satisfactory life, and additive goods, those materials and activities that add to one's existing resources (Reamer, 1999, p. 71). In Gerwith's hierarchy basic goods take priority over non-subtractive goods which, in turn, take priority over additive goods (p.71). Reamer (1999) has overlaid Gerwith's concepts with some basic social work values and has developed the following decision making framework. I have chosen to put his concepts into table form with titles I have chosen. Reamer's Framework Simplified: Simplified Title Reamer's Rule Simplified Application 1. Rights of People to "Basic Goods" "Rules against basic harms to the necessary preconditions of human action (such as life itself, health, food, shelter, mental equilibrium) take precedence over rules against harms such as lying or revealing confidential information or threats to additive goods such as recreation, education and wealth" The responsibility for a society to take care of the basic needs of all its citizens should take priority over the provision of "nice, but not necessary" provision of government goods and services. It is sometimes OK to lie or to share confidential information if to do so assures that someone will live. 2. Well-being "trumps" selfdeterminatio n "An individual's right to basic well-being (including goods that are essential for human action) takes precedence over another individual's right to selfdetermination Human service workers must break confidentiality and inform authorities if a client threatens to harm another person. It is wrong to "get rich" at another's expense. 3. Right to selfdeterminatio n "trumps" right to basic well being "An individual's right to self determination takes precedence over his or her right to basic well-being Human service workers should not "force" clients to accept help even if that help is "for their own good" 4. Laws take "The obligation to obey laws, rules, and regulations precedence to which one has voluntarily and freely consented over personal ordinarily overrides ones right to engage voluntarily Human service workers cannot change laws, rules, regulations, or even agency policies simply because whims. and freely in a manner that conflicts with these laws, rules, and regulations. they "feel" like doing so. 5. Laws can be overridden but only for good reasons. "Individuals' rights to basic well-being may override laws, rules, regulations, and agreements of voluntary associations in cases of conflict." Human services workers may decide that it is necessary to break the law in order to protect a client from harm. This is to be done carefully and infrequently. 6. Pay taxes to help others "The obligation to prevent basic harms such as starvation and to promote public goods such as housing, education, and public assistance overrides the right to complete control over one's property." Even though our society prizes private ownership and capitalism, all people have a basic right to life which takes priority over private ownership. (c) 2005, 2007 Joyce S. McKnight based on Reamer (1999, p. 75) 4 Lowenberg and Dolgoff's Ethical Principles Screen Lowenberg and Dolgoff (2000, cited in Reamer, 2005) have created a decision-making model that can be used for ethical decision making. They suggest that one must first consult the ethical principles of one's profession for guidance in ethical decision making (p.10). If the ethical guidelines do not give concrete guidance or if they are contradictory, one may use the following hierarchy of values or decision making principles as a "screen" for decision making: • Principle 1: Principle of the Protection of Life. Biological life must always take precedence over any other principles, because it is in the context of life that ethical decisions are made. • Principle 2: Principle of Equality and Inequality. Similar situations and circumstances should be treated the same. However, if there are relevant significant differences these should be taken into consideration and unequal treatment may be accorded where it would lead to greater equality. • Principle 3: Principle of Autonomy and Freedom. Client's autonomy and self-determination should always be considered, unless their autonomous activities would threaten the life of self or other. The right to freedom, however, is less compelling than the prevention of harm or death. • Principle 4: Principle of Least Harm. Social workers should avoid causing harm and prevent harm from occurring to clients or others. Where harm is unavoidable, social workers should choose the course of least harm, or most easily reversible harm. • Principle 5: Principle of Quality of Life. Enhancing quality of life for clients or others in society should be a goal of social work interventions. • Principle 6: Principle of Privacy and Confidentiality. The right to privacy of clients and others should be enhanced wherever possible and in accordance with laws. However, it may be necessary to break confidentiality when serious harm or death to clients or others may result from maintaining such confidentiality. • Principle 7: Principle of Truthfulness and Full Disclosure. Social workers should be honest and provide full and truthful information to clients and others in order to support a relationship grounded in trust and honest." (Lowenberg and Dolgoff, 2000, p. 70-71 cited in Rothman, 2005, p.10) 5 The Bio-ethical or Medical Model Reamer (2005) presents the bio-ethical or medical model as a third set of principles that can be used along with professional guidelines and consultation in ethical decision making. Beaucamp and Childress (1994, p.15 cited in Reamer, 2005, p. 11) have suggested a three tiered approach to ethical decision making that is similar to the one advocated in this course. Their process moves from the abstract to the concrete. Theories (i.e. deontology, teleology) comprise the most abstract level. Principles are next in abstraction and provide general guidance for decision making. Next come rules which are slightly more specific. Particular actions and judgments are the final most concrete level in which the specifics of each case must be taken into consideration (p.11). Beucamp and Childress list four general principles for ethical decision making. They do not prioritize these principles. • Principle 1: The Principle of Respect for Autonomy. (or self-determination). Respect for autonomy justifies informed consent and informed refusal. (Beaucamp and Childress, 1994, p.125-128 cited in Reamer, 2005 p.11.) • Principle 2: The Principle of Nonmaleficence. This principle is based on the Hippocratic oath, and it simply states "first of all do no harm." (Beaucamp and Childress, 1994, p.125-128 cited in Reamer, 2005, p.11.) • Principle 3: The Principle of Beneficence. Doing no harm is not sufficient--one has an additional obligation to actively pursue the welfare of others. (Beaucamp and Childress, 1994 p.125-128 cited in Reamer, 2005, p.11.) • Principle 4: The Principle of Justice. Justice is described in terms of fairness. Principles used to determinations of justice are equal share, need, effort, contribution to society, merit, and free market exchange. (Beaucamp and Childress, 1994, p. 125-128 cited in Reamer 2005, p.11.) Rules for ethical decision making suggested by Beaucamp and Childress (1994, p.395 cited in Reamer, 2005, p.11.) include (1) the rule of veracity (truth) (2) the rule of privacy (3) the rule of confidentiality and (4) the rule of fidelity (faithfulness to duty). Each of these models from Reamer has its own strengths and weakness, but each can be used in ethical decision making. 6 Toward a Quality of Life Ethical Paradigm The following text is a portion of the ethics chapter of Joyce S. McKnight's text "Community Organizing: Theory and Practice" which is in press at Allyn and Bacon with an anticipated publication date of 2014. All rights reserved. Toward a Quality of Life Paradigm This book is based on an explicit values framework that emphasizes humanity’s mutual responsibility for building and maintaining a high quality of life for everyone. This “quality of life” paradigm moves beyond the industrial paradigm’s emphasis on production and exploitation of resources to a vision of sustainability and a global commonwealth. The ideas in this section are taken primarily from the work of my colleague Drew Hyman, professor emeritus of the State University of Pennsylvania who is the inspiration for much of this text. The Quality of Life paradigm is a vision of a world where everyone has enough. A Quality of Life environment has clean air and water, sufficient food, medical care, and affordable housing for everyone. Its villages, towns, and city neighborhoods are safe and have a sense of neighborliness and belonging. Each person has a voice in community decisions and experiences himself or herself as a person of value. People have a sense of mutual responsibility for important aspects of life, especially for the care of children who are safe and loved. Diversity is respected, honored, and celebrated. There are opportunities for healthful recreation, learning, and spiritual growth. These high quality communities will be supported by an economy that does not use up the world’s resources, but uses a sustainable development model that can be maintained indefinitely (Buck, 2006; UN Department of Economic and Global Affairs: Division of Sustainable Development, 2007) Some basic premises of this model are as follows: • All life takes place within a natural environment of non-renewable resources such as clean air, pure water, livable temperatures, and uncontaminated soil. All human and animal life is dependent upon these resources, therefore, economic life must take place within their limits and cannot be allowed to damage them (UN Department of Economic and Global Affairs, 2007), Sustainable Pittsburgh, 2006). • Economic life should be based on appropriate technology and regional economics, local needs, local resources, local customs and the application of models that have worked in similar situations. This idea of appropriate, regionalized economics was first introduced by the British economist E.F. Schumacher in his book Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered published in 1965 (Schumacher, 1965). • A positive quality of life does not simply mean job creation. In fact, the whole concept of “jobs” is an invention of the industrial revolution. In the quality of life world everyone will be engaged in tasks that build community life. There will be more emphasis on actual production of goods and services and far less emphasis on investments than currently (Perman, 1988). • While many people will probably still work for wages or salaries, there will be many models of family and self-support including nonexploitive combinations of part-time work, self-employment, and voluntary engagement (Perman, 1988). • Individuals will have different patterns of work across their lifetimes that fit appropriately into their lives at different stages. For instance, parents will be better able to balance child-rearing with work without sacrificing either (Perman, 1988). • Tasks that are socially valuable, but are currently unpaid or underpaid will have value and worth. These include child rearing, community volunteer work, and artistic expression including poetry (Perman, 1988). • The social sphere including family, religion, education, cultural activities, and wellness which are dependent on both a sound ecology and a solid economy will flourish. • National success will be evaluated on indicators of a healthy, happy population such as increased maternal and child health, reduced morbidity, increased literacy levels, improved housing conditions and improved air, water and soil quality rather than on the Gross National Product (UN Department of Economic and Global Affairs, 2007), Sustainable Pittsburgh, 2006). The Quality of Life paradigm is a synthesis of the warmth of the communal spirit, the scientific and technological methods of the industrial revolution and the ease of the information age. The Quality of Life world will not only be based on healthy geographic communities, but will be tied together by many communities of interest united by the internet and other means of global communication. Creating this post-industrial, Quality of Life world will not be easy. It is predicated on a very different value system than has been the norm since at least the mid-eighteenth century. A glance at the nightly news shows how far we seem to be from a truly new paradigm. The industrial paradigm (sometimes also called modernism or globalization) is still largely in control. Its power can be seen in global dependence on fossil fuels, in the power of multi-national corporations with budgets greater than those of many nations, and in wars fought for obscure but probably mainly economic reasons. Its costs can be seen in the suffering of millions of civilians, massive refugee problems, extensive pollution of air and water, loss of animal species and people groups, major climate changes, and the continuing struggle of working people to be more than “human capital.” In spite of it all, there is the same hope that Tocqueville (1840) found so long ago and Margaret Mead articulated so well: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." The change to a quality of life paradigm will be accomplished “from the ground up” by dedicated people like the ones di ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

johnalia (1058)
UC Berkeley

I was on a very tight deadline but thanks to Studypool I was able to deliver my assignment on time.

The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

I did not know how to approach this question, Studypool helped me a lot.


Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors