I consider my personal values to be non-judgemental and family orientated. I am bias against social injustice and discrimination. However, I am a strong believer in self worth. I have respect for others and expect the same respect towards myself. I feel my past experiences have provided me with a certain level of understanding which has eliminated many prejudices that I was conscious of. In addition, my knowledge and experiences are continuously making me more aware of how my actions have an impact on others.
With regards to the scenario of the assignment, this involves the dilemma of placing children into a suitable home. Taking first impressions into account, I feel that I may be slightly bias towards the sister gaining custody of the children. The father has had no contact with the children and has shown prejudicial behaviour, conflicting with my personal values. However, upon reflection and taking into account the G.S.C.C. code of conduct. 1.1. Treating each person as an individual (www.gscc.org.uk). I would not allow my personal bias cloud my judgement. It is often the case that there is more than meets the eye. It would be essential that the social worker in question should be non bias. Not allowing any personal values intervene with their professional values to ensure the best possible outcome for the primary clients.
Ethical perspectives may provide another aspect into an individual’s view and can determine how they handle ethical situations on a daily basis. An individual may fall into one perspective or have a combination of ethical perspectives.
Utilitarianism is concerned with happiness and pleasure and was founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the late 18th and 19th century. Based on the principle that an action is right if it generates, or tends to generate the best possible outcome for the majority of people that are affected by that action. Failure to do so defines the action as wrong. The ultimate goal in life of a utilitarian is purely happiness over pain, that the moral worth of an action is determined by the input to full utility. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the outcome justifies the means. There are three main types of utilitarianism; these are act, rule and preference. Act utilitarian is more flexible as it takes into account individual situations, maintaining that the action is good if it generates the best possible outcome in a particular situation. Rule utilitarian is concerned with the amount of good that a moral action produces, conforming to a rule or law. The rule or law is correct and is determined by the amount of good that is generated when the rule is followed. Preference utilitarian is one of the more popular forms of utilitarianism, it takes into account peoples preferences. The moral action is right if it produces a satisfaction of each person’s individual desires or preference.
Although utilitarianism is primarily about making the world a better place to be, there are a variety of opposing factors to utilitarianism. Firstly, utilitarianism does not allow for individuality and is only concerned about the greatest number of people overall. The principle of utility on it own does not inform us on the distribution of happiness and who should be promoted. Secondly, human nature is dynamic and the perspective fails to take into account the changing character of people and the changing character of what is good for them. Thirdly, morality is not based on the consequences of actions, it should be based on the essential view of justice. With regards to social work ethics, to so some extent utilitarianism can be recognized in the anti oppressive approaches in the 1980s and 1990s (Dominelli, 1988; Langan and Lee, 1989; Thompson, 1993). Other principles such as non preferential treatment, respect, human dignity and the promotion of the service user’s general welfare and public good are also evident in the values of social work
Kantian ethical perspective is deontological; it concentrates only on what should be done regardless of the consequences. The consequences are not believed to be morally significant and are not taken into consideration. Kantian ethics are focused on acts for the sake of duty; it is these acts that are considered to have moral worth. In other words, doing the right thing based on the motives or intentions of the act for the right reasons, not for the consequences that may follow the act. According to Kant a person should ‘act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of any other, never solely as a means but always also as an end’ (1964, p.96). This statement declares that we should treat each other as human beings with desires and choices not as a mean or object to our own ends. For Kant, the intentions must be a principle action, a pure form of good will. People are free and autonomous and are able to make and perform to their own moral laws. In addition, a universal law may ensure that peoples moral actions are similar, a hope that people in the same situations may behave in the same way. The universal law generates examples of the categorical imperative, where obligations may bind people regardless of the circumstances or consequences. ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’ (Kant, 1964, p.88). Kant believes that this will lead every rational human being to comply with the same moral principles.
Although Kantianism is primarily focused on the sense of people’s duty, critics have argued that the perspective gives no allowance for compassion and sympathy to motivate people’s actions. Furthermore, Kantian has a lack of guidelines when dealing with conflicting requirements. Kant’s moral philosophy has been influential in the values and ethics of social work, in particular respect for people and self determination. This has been argued to be the underpinning of the practice, respect for persons is the foundation of ethics in social work, and indeed, any system of moral thinking (Plant, 1970).
Social work can not simply fit in to one ethical perspective, although it may have many features of Kantian and Utilitarian. Social work is about recognizing that each service user is unique and has the right to make their own choices and decision regarding their case. What's more, emotions are very powerful and service users need to feel that they are being listened to with out feeling that they are being adversely judged. Society is unequal and the promotion of opportunity and equality is essential. In addition, conflicts may occur in the meanings of certain features. For example, Stalley claims that being non judgemental may be viewed as unable to make moral judgements about a person’s character, yet, social workers have a responsibility to society in helping service users and to preserve their own moral truthfulness by making moral judgements (1978). There are also the occasions where a social worker may have to break the confidentiality for the safety of the service user, this goes against Kantian views of respect for persons.
With regards to the scenario given with this assignment, a social worker has to assess which guardian the children would be better placed with. The social worker is given two possible homes, one is with the biological sister and the other is with the biological father. The children have already been living with their aunty and may be happy and settled. In addition, it is the mother’s wishes for the children to be placed with her sister and it would not involve moving the children from their school. If the decision were made for the children to remain at the sister’s home then this would take a utilitarian approach, as the majority of people that are affected in this situation would be happy. However, Kantianism may disagree with this notion, as it is the father’s duty to provide and look after his own children. Yet the father has displayed oppressive behaviour towards the sister in law, claiming that she incapable of looking after his children because of her sexual identity. This notion creates oppression and is not politically correct; the social worker should address this issue. According to the G.S.C.C. codes of practice 5.6, a social worker must not ‘condone any unlawful or unjustifiable discrimination by service users, carers or colleges’ (www.gscc.org.uk). However, they must also treat each person as an individual and respect people’s views. It should be made clear to the father without alienating him or forming barriers that the sexual identity of a person has no implications on a person’s ability to care, nor will the discrimination of a person be taken into account. As Hocquenghem argues ‘the problem is not so much homosexual desires as the fear of homosexuality (1978, p.35). The G.S.C.C. codes of practice 2.6, also states a social worker must ‘declare issues that might create conflicts of interest and making sure that they do not influence your judgement or practice’ (www.gscc.org.uk). Although the social worker in question may not agree with the fathers views, they must stay impartial at all times to ensure the best possible outcome for the primary clients. In addition, the scenario given does not state any wishes of the primary clients which must be taken into consideration.
Overall, values and ethics are the core foundation to any individual and especially to social work. A social worker will have to be flexible as they may have multiple accountability to a variety of sources, such as the service user, employers and carers. This means that the social worker must be prepared to explain and justify their actions and be open to scrutiny. As Clark points out, from an ethical point of view, social workers must take responsibility for their actions of which they have control and be accountable for these actions if they are to behave in a truly professional manner (2005). It is imperative to adhere to the G.S.C.C. codes of conduct and remain unprejudiced at all times. It is inevitable that at some time or another, a social worker’s personal values and ethics may conflict with their professional values and ethics. However, the social worker must stay focused to the task at hand at all times, ensuring that the conflict between the ethics does not interfere.
Word count 2316
Reference
Banks, S. (2001) Ethics and Values in Social Work, 2nd edn, London, BASW/Macmillan.
Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) (1995) Assuring Quality in the Diploma in Social Work – 1: Rules and Requirements for the Diploma in Social Work, London, CCETSW.
Clark, C. (2005) The deprofessionalisation thesis, Social Work and Society, 3 (2), 182-90.
Collins English Dictonary (2007) Glasgow, Harper Collins Publishers.
Dominelli, L. (1988) Anti Racist Social Work, 2nd edn, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Frankena, W. (1963) Ethics, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Hocquenghem, G. (1978) Homosexual Desire, London, Allison & Busby.
Kant, I. (1964) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, New York, Harper & Row.
Langan, M. and Lee, P. (eds) (1989) Radical Social Work Today, London, Unwin
Hyman.
Plant, R. (1970) Social and Moral Theory in Casework, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pinker, R. (1990) Social Work in an Enterprise Society, London, Routledge.
Stalley, R. (1978) ‘Non Judgemental Attitudes’, in N. Timms and D. Watson (eds), Philosophy in Social Work, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Thompson, N. (1993) Anti Discrimination Practice, Basingstoke,Macmillan.
Internet
General Social Care Council (2009) Codes of Practice, [online] General Social Care Council. Available from, [date accessed 11th November 2009].
