Ethics
Marvilla, Monale A.
I basically like Ethics as an academic subject because it’s a supplementary learning aid to what’s supposed to be known (at heart) by everyone without the needs of having it taught at educational facilities and the like. Why? Humans are created with basic innate goodness within them; that is to say: it’s an automatic act to avoid what is evil and yearn what is good; able to distinguish between good and evil, right or wrong, moral and immoral, and is accountable for the self’s actions- expecting reward or punishment. A
I found George F. Will’s article from the Washington Post, “Code of Coercion” quite interesting. Some good points are brought up in the article such as whether or not a certain field or program of education should even come with a so called set of ideological “rules”. Sure there are codes of ethics and guidelines for conduct in most professions, but these are not absolute, and surely don’t mean the same thing to everyone.
Yes, there are four main questions I think we need to consider. 1) Are there ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics? 2) Should there be ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics? 3) If there should be ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics, does the code of ethics have the right rules, is it missing some, and does it have some that should not be included? 4) Are social work students supposed to subscribe to the NASW code of ethics, or merely be familiar with it?
The answers are: 1) yes, there are ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics. 2) Yes, there ought to be ideological rules, because professions have ideologies (or at least they ought to have ideologies). For example, in medical ethics doctors must subscribe to an ideology that they will do no harm to a patient. That is why ethical physicians will not assist in administering the poisons in lethal injection executions, although they will certify that a condemned prisoner has died. This is an ideology that doctors must
I basically like Ethics as an academic subject because it’s a supplementary learning aid to what’s supposed to be known (at heart) by everyone without the needs of having it taught at educational facilities and the like. Why? Humans are created with basic innate goodness within them; that is to say: it’s an automatic act to avoid what is evil and yearn what is good; able to distinguish between good and evil, right or wrong, moral and immoral, and is accountable for the self’s actions- expecting reward or punishment. A
I found George F. Will’s article from the Washington Post, “Code of Coercion” quite interesting. Some good points are brought up in the article such as whether or not a certain field or program of education should even come with a so called set of ideological “rules”. Sure there are codes of ethics and guidelines for conduct in most professions, but these are not absolute, and surely don’t mean the same thing to everyone.
Yes, there are four main questions I think we need to consider. 1) Are there ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics? 2) Should there be ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics? 3) If there should be ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics, does the code of ethics have the right rules, is it missing some, and does it have some that should not be included? 4) Are social work students supposed to subscribe to the NASW code of ethics, or merely be familiar with it?
The answers are: 1) yes, there are ideological rules in the NASW code of ethics. 2) Yes, there ought to be ideological rules, because professions have ideologies (or at least they ought to have ideologies). For example, in medical ethics doctors must subscribe to an ideology that they will do no harm to a patient. That is why ethical physicians will not assist in administering the poisons in lethal injection executions, although they will certify that a condemned prisoner has died. This is an ideology that doctors must