Community Ethics Compared to Professional Ethics

    How do we prevent a great divide between community ethics compared to professional ethics?  Although values and ethics are frequently used interchangeably, the two terms are not identical. Values pertains to beliefs and attitudes that provide direction to everyday living, whereas ethics pertains to the beliefs we hold about what constitutes right conduct. Ethics are moral principles adopted by an individual or group to provide rules for right conduct. As noted by Remley and Herlihy (2016), ethics are aspirational goals representing the maximum or ideal standards set by the profession, practiced through your professional behavior and interactions,
    By contrast, laws represent the body of rules governing the affairs of people within a community, state, or country. Laws define the minimum standards society will tolerate, which are enforced by the government. For example. we can agree that a minimum standard is the legal obligation required of educators or mental health professionals to report suspected child abuse. Yet, the law can further encourage working toward changing societal attitudes to prevent child abuse rather than only reporting it.
   Although professional actions are related to ethical behavior, it is possible to act unprofessionally and still not act unethically.  Community standards often establish the ultimate legal criteria by determining or defining what is considered reasonable behavior. Reasonableness can be defined as the care that is ordinarily exercised by others practicing within the same specialty within the professional community.
    Perhaps understanding the potential divide between community ethics compared professional ethics requires conceptualizing professional ethics by contrasting mandatory ethics with aspirational ethics. We should agree that mandatory ethics describe a level of ethical functioning based on one's compliance with minimal standards and acknowledgement of  the basic tenets clarifying what we must do compared to  must never do. The focus of mandatory ethics is on behavioral rules.  By contrast, aspirational ethics describe the highest standards of thinking and conduct, requiring one to do more than simply meet the letter of the ethics code. Aspirational ethics entail embracing the spirit behind the code and the principles upon which the code of conduct and behavior ethical rests. 
    While it is essential place principles before personalities, the ethical professional should seek to integrate virtue ethics and principle ethics to reach better ethical decisions and policies. Let's take this moment to differentiate between principle ethics and virtue ethics. We should agree that principle ethics are a set of obligations and a method that focuses on moral issues with the goals of solving a particular dilemma or set of dilemmas and establishing a framework to guide future ethical thinking and behavior (Meara, Schmidt, & Day, 1996).
    By contrast, virtue ethics focus upon the professional's character traits and nonobligatory ideals to which she or he aspires rather than on solving specific ethical dilemmas. While reflection upon principle ethics begs the question, I's this unethical?', reflection from the pursuit of virtue ethics would question whether one is doing what is best for his or her followers,  client, or student. Crucially, virtue ethics requires the professional to be conscious of ethical behavior. Therefore, the virtuous professional would deem it unethical to use approaches or techniques that might not result in the greatest benefit to her or his followers, client, or student or to use any techniques to which he or she has not been thoroughly trained, although their use might not be prohibited in practice.
    Therefore, virtue ethics focus upon ideals rather than obligations and on the character of the professional rather than on the action itself. Thus, principles before personalities.  Five characteristics of virtuous professionals were described by Meara et al (1996).  These were: 

• Virtuous agents are motivated to do what is right because they judge it to be right, not just because they feel obligated or fear the consequences.

• Virtuous agents rely on vision and discernment, which involve sensitivity, judgment, and understanding that lead to decisive action.

• Virtuous agents have compassion and are sensitive to the suffering of others. They are able to take actions to reduce their clients’ pain.

• Virtuous agents are self-aware. They know how their assumptions, convictions, and biases are likely to affect their interactions with others.

• Virtuous agents are connected with and understand the mores of their community and the importance of community in moral decision making, policy setting, and character development. They understand the ideals and expectations of their community. 

    The Parable of the Sadhu provides an opportunity to analyze how diverse styles of leadership might have evaluated, assessed, and handled the ethical dilemma presented by a dying pilgrim and his treatment by groups of mountain climbers.  Surely the native culture and cultural differences embedded within the different national teams participating in the treacherous climb mitigated the use of effective leadership beyond individual group needs.  Culture also influenced the decision-making process within characters who exhibited a range of leadership.  Let us review the parable, reflect upon what the reader would do if he or she were in either Stephen’s or McCoy’s place, and then critically examine and debate various perceptions of the diverse leadership styles exhibited in the parable and the impact of the micro and macro culture upon potential leadership and decision-making. 

    Considering Covey’s (1989) exhortation to begin with the end mind, let's consider the missing leadership style that could have ensured the Sadhu was adequately supported during a necessary 1000 foot descent to the safety of the basecamp hut.  Related to sustaining a human life, more would have been achieved by exhibiting servant leadership.  In his telling of the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus notes the Samaritan was supportive and gave time and financial resources to aid the beaten stranger.  However, the Samaritan told the innkeeper, “Look after him, and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have” (Luke 10:35).  The Samaritan mercifully did what he reasonable could by ensuring others would pick up the next line of aid but then the Samaritan continued on his journey.  By contrast, in The Parable of the Sadhu, Stephen, the voice of Christian conscience within McCoy’s dilemma, was actually the person who did not continue to act as a good and merciful Samaritan.  

    Patterson (2003) believes servant leaders seek radical equality for all people.  A true servant leader among the diverse groups would have recognized the Sadhu’s quest for life was important as his own.  Since Stephen espoused knowledge of Christian ethics and his own weakness made him the last in line of support for the Sadhu, I Stephen was a servant leader he would have recognized his responsibility to ensure the stranger reached safety BEFORE considering the continuation of his own journey.  Surely, this may have meant Stephen wouldn’t meet his personal goal.  But, because of Stephen’s lack of moral integrity, we will never know what occurred to the Sadhu or how great of an alternate story may have resulted from servant leadership acting in this dilemma. 

    Fifteen years after the initial experience with the Sadhu, McCoy (1997) toiled again with the basic question presented by the dilemma: When is it necessary to take a stand?  How much should we allow a stranger to influence decisions that impact our daily lives?  How should we handle the needy since we certainly can’t help everyone?  Generalizing the parable into business, McCoy asked,“How do we prepare our organizations and institutions so they will respond appropriately in a crisis? How do we influence them if we do not agree with their points of view?” (p. 7)

    Yes, McCoy is prudent suggesting one cannot quit a job over every ethical dilemma.  However, how is the line in the sand determined?  In the Parable of the Sadhu, isn’t the dilemma actually created by the inaction of Stephen-rather than the actions of the diverse groups who never were a collective?  More importantly given the culture of Himalayan mountain climbing, there never was an opportunity to form the diverse groups into a single organization united behind an objective contrary to individual group’s goals.  This is why most groups exhibited a form of situational leadership.  Each group did something for the Sadhu and then moved on.  In their model of situational leadership, Goleman, Boyatzis,and McKee (2004) actually considers five principles of emotional intelligence to formulate six different situational leadership styles.  Goleman et al., emphasizes the need for a leader to change between these six styles whenever conditions around him or her changed.  The two constants in this parable were each group’s climbing goal and the ill-health of the Sadhu.  The changing conditions were the support behind each ascending group and the worsening environment.  Unfortunately, most of the groups exhibited situational leadership based on a pace-setting or a commanding style of leadership, which would be helpful for getting through the Himalayan pass but deadly for the Sadhu.  Given, an assorted group of strangers unilaterally acting to obtain a goal rather than acting as a unified collective, can it reasonably be expected that a goal centered leadership style would act morally and ethically?  Is it reasonable to suggest the culture of mountain climbing, which would embrace the characteristics of situational leadership when guided by a pace-setting leader or a commanding leader, would believe it is acting morally and ethically to do what one can for a “weak sadhu” and then pass the need for help onto those behind?  

    While the different groups primarily exhibited one of two forms of situational leadership, what was the leadership style exhibited by Stephen?  Let’s recall his cultural background as a Quaker anthropologist.  Let’s also be honest in recognizing that he was the last line of definitive support for the Sadhu.  Many may want to characterize Stephen as a transformational leader but his attempt to lay Christian-Judeo guilt upon McCoy by asking, "How do you feel about contributing to the death of a fellow man?” merely exhibits his lack of ethical integrity thereby hinting that he would actually be a narcissistic leader.  Although narcissists possess charisma and vision considered vital to effective leadership, they also possess belief systems that would be considered grandiose.  Their leadership styles are therefore often motivated by need for power and admiration rather than empathetic concern for either their constituents or their institutions (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).  Would there have been a parable without Stephen’s question and the ambiguity of the Sadhu’s survival resulting from his inaction? 

    McCoy, the parable’s author was a Morgan Stanley financier whereby transactional leadership was the likely culture.  Stephen’s inaction toward the sadhu and ensuing philosophical discussion helped McCoy evolve from a goal oriented transactional leader to become a transformational leader.  As a result of the overall experience, McCoy became a different leader-thereafter seeking to help other leaders and organizations to transform themselves based on solid ethics. 

    Lastly, to fully understand the potential conflict between community ethics compared to professional ethics, you are invited to reflect upon and recognize the need to have a better understanding of what occurred to the Sadhu to get him in the condition in which he was found.  The reason for this is that cultural ignorance could impact our thinking of the parable.  As we learn from the story of the struggling butterfly graphically explicated by Lobb (2010), there are times when struggle has a purpose.  Perhaps, the Sadhu didn’t want any help.  The Parable of the Sadhu is silent in regards to anyone asking the Sadhu, “What happened?” and “How can we best help you?”  To a truly virtuous servant leader, these are two very important ethical questions.

To Cite

Anderson, C.J. (January 31, 2022) Community ethics compared to professional ethics

[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

                                            

References

Covey, S.R. (1989) The Seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic.  Simon and Schuster

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R, & McKee, A. (2004) Primal leadership, HBS Press,

Lobb, C. (2010) http://butterflystory.homestead.com/

McCoy, B. H. (1983, September/October). The parable of the sadhu. Harvard Business Review, 103-108

McCoy, B. H. (1997). The Parable of the sadhu. Harvard Business Review,

Meara, N.S. Schmidt, L.D., & Day, J.D. (1996) Principles and virtues: A foundation of ethical decisions, policies, and character; The Counseling Psychologist, 24 (1), 24-31.

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.

Remley, T.P. & Herlihy, B. (2016). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (5th ed.). Pearson