Edith Cowan University CSV2116 Assignment: Ethics in Human Service

This assignment delves into the core concepts of ethics in human service, beginning with an exploration of the moral point of view, as shaped by personal beliefs and societal influences, as revealed through an ethics inventory. It then differentiates between ethical relativism, absolutism, and pluralism, and examines how a pluralist might approach the complex issue of female genital mutilation. The assignment further analyzes the ethics of duty, specifically focusing on Kant's categorical imperative, outlining its strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, it examines contemporary theories on the ethics of rights, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages, and addressing potential rights conflicts. Finally, the assignment explores the ethics of character, contrasting it with other ethical theories, and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, including the issue of incompatible behavior, all within the framework of the provided readings.

Running head: ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 1
Ethics in Human Service
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 2
Table of Contents
1.The moral point of view...............................................................................................................3
2. Relativism, Absolutism, and Pluralism.......................................................................................4
2.1. Differences............................................................................................................................4
2.2. Pluralists Response...............................................................................................................4
6.The Ethics of Duty........................................................................................................................5
6.1 Categorical Imperative...........................................................................................................5
6.2 Strengths of Kantian Position................................................................................................6
6.3 Weaknesses of Kantian Position............................................................................................6
7.The Ethics of Rights: Contemporary Theories.............................................................................7
7.1 Advantages of Rights Approach............................................................................................7
7.2 Disadvantages of Rights Approach.......................................................................................8
7.3 Rights Conflict.......................................................................................................................8
9.The Ethics of Character: Aristotle and Our Contemporaries........................................................9
9.1 Difference between Ethics of Nature and Other Ethical Theories........................................9
9.2 Advantages of Character-Based Ethics...............................................................................10
9.3 Disadvantages of Character-Based ethics............................................................................10
9.4 Incompatible Behavior.........................................................................................................10
References......................................................................................................................................12
Ethics in Human Service

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 3
1. The moral point of view
Every person has moral and ethical values that dictate their belief on the rightness and
wrongness of an action. The ethical inventory propounded by Hinman (2013) purposed to help
individuals realize their drive while making moral decisions and the influence of things around
them on the degree of consideration of ethicality of an action. Based on a string information the
scale is significant in helping individuals realize their moral understanding. After completing the
inventory, I made several conclusions pertaining to ethical decisions and standards. Morality and
ethical standards are subjective concepts depended on the society that one lives. Notably, what
may be considered moral in a particular community may turn unethical in another setting
depending on the observances and beliefs of the two cultures (Beckett, Maynard & Jordan,
2017). Therefore, the decision path to making moral judgments is not isolated to the agent
making the judgment but tied to the environment under which one is making the decision.
It is right to argue that human beings are not free agents of action but bound by the things
around them while making decisions. Most of the judgments that we make in our daily lives are
inclined to the fear of the unknown or the deities (Singer, 2013). There are several sources of
religious morals, and it would be absurd to conclude that there is only one religion. According to
Beckett et al. (2017), people act to avoid pain although moral foundations prohibit us from acting
this way. However, everyone tends to judge other people depending on their actions despite the
truth that human beings are free to make choices. The ability to measure the ethicality of an
incidence is subject to the parameters laid down by the people determining the situation. For
instance, some people may argue that consensual sex is okay while the religious may hold the
fact that sex is holy and despite how people do, it if it is outside the agreed principle of religion,
it is wrong. Therefore, it is true that morality is a subject of time and depending on the stage of

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 4
development, the ethicality of an incidence can be determined (Hinman, 2012). Consequently,
we are all bound to act in a specific manner delineated by the society as the moral path.
2. Relativism, Absolutism, and Pluralism
2.1. Differences
A moral consideration, when reflected under relativism, absolutism, and pluralism,
implies different thing under the different isms. From a relativist point of view, there is no point
of agreement on what is right or wrong because every society has its description of moral actions
(Kusch, 2017). For instance, polygamy is allowed among Islamic while it is condemned in
Christianity. For pluralist, every observance is important, and cultures must enable views from
others and maintain their beliefs too (Hinman, 2012). Pluralist demand that people should
consider others decisions before condemning them. On the other, absolutism emphasizes a
particular culture is the best, and no one can challenge it (Siegel, 2017). Therefore, no right thing
exists outside that culture and if it does, it is morally unacceptable. Consequently, moral
decisions made by individuals are subject to the three perceptions of the actions.
2.2. Pluralists Response
Pluralists are accommodative to the beliefs inside and outside a particular system of
beliefs. Therefore, they try to understand why people behave in a specific way and observe
certain things. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a contentious topic in the world today. Both
sides of the divide hold certain perception leading them to condemn or support the practice.
However, a moral pluralist will be lenient while responding to forced female circumcision
(Kusch, 2017). For this ethical point of view, it is important to dig deep into the motivation
behind carrying out FGM before condemning those who do it. Indeed, pro-FGM societies have
genuine intentions for passing the culture activity to their generations. However, the anti-FGM
movements and individuals fail to get the gist behind the action denying a point of understanding

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 5
between the two groups. Therefore, a moral pluralist will try to bring the two sides into
consensus and allow them to agree on the way forward. Moral pluralism does not give any
cultural practice an upper hand against another but provides for dialogue and understanding
while making ethical decisions (Kosiewicz, 2015). For instance, societies that support FGM
argue that they practice it to avoid immorality among their people by reducing the sexual urge
among females. Anti-FGM on the other use scientific evidence to show that despite carrying the
practice, it will not lead to decreased sexual demand among women. Therefore, a pluralist will
tell two sides there can be other ways to help women manage their sexuality without engaging
them in FGM or condemning the ones who do it. Consequently, pluralist realizes that everyone
has a reason behind their actions and no matter how evil everyone sees it, it is significant to
understand why they percieve it their way, but our standpoint on it does not make it evil at all.
6. The Ethics of Duty
6.1 Categorical Imperative
The search for a universal foundation for morality has been active among human beings
for a long time. Kant is among the most prominent philosopher who delved into the morality
subject and came up with an ideal elucidation for moral consideration. His categorical imperative
idea led him to believe that there is always one way to make ethical decisions (Kant, 2013). In
the words of Hinman (2013), the categorical imperative implies that there is only one maxim for
individuals to act, at a particular time, across all space. Therefore, the imperative applies to all
moral agents and ethical situations. Accordingly, under categorical imperative, human beings
would act morally and responsibly in every moral case. An excellent example of a categorical
imperative is eating healthy food. Notably, good health is essential for a person’s health and
community prosperity. Therefore, choosing to eat healthily will be good for an individual and the
community and it makes the world more productive by generating healthy food that is harmless

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 6
to the environment. Contrary to the categorical imperative is the idea of materialism and
capitalism that has little benefits to individuals but ultimately causes harm to humanity through
over-production and consumption. In such a situation, a categorical imperative essential for this
case would be a spirituality that would engender the good for the individuals and the universe
that they live (Wry & Lounsbury, 2013). Consequently, the categorical imperative is essential in
making ethical decisions.
6.2 Strengths of Kantian Position
The categorical imperative position held by Kant has several advantages. The principle of
universal ethics envisions bringing order in the society by allowing individuals to make decisions
that are consistent across the universe. Indeed, individuals will act in duty where their actions
have benefits to them and the society. Both the agent of action and the people around them will
have benefits. According to Wry and Lounsbury (2013), the good in Kantian position is that it
means significance for all but not isolated to benefit the moral agent only. Therefore, categorical
imperative helps the society to get rid of bias and prejudice because the universal obligation
principle rules the occasion for decisions making at all times (Kant, 2013). Consequently,
actions envisioned by Kant impose a duty on moral agents rather than avoidance of attraction for
the pleasure and pain. Indeed, the universalization of morality creates a force of reason rather
than a subject of emotion during the decision-making process.
6.3 Weaknesses of Kantian Position
However, Kant’s position has several shortcomings. Notably, the Kantian position
appears to be abstract because it does not define what decisions are morally right but stipulates
how to act in certain situations (Zuckerman, 2017). Therefore, people may use the universal
principle to justify all their actions even when they are morally wrong. Notably, Kant seems to
imply that people should act only when they expect something good in return. Thus, people

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 7
should put duty above everything that they do suggest that people may operate in an inhuman
manner provided they fulfill their obligation. In his articulation, Kant puts God at the focal point
implying that an atheist may not accept his case (Zuckerman, 2017). Moreover, Kant advocates
that people should respect others as it is good and morally right, but he does not contextualize
decisions and the effect of the environment on individuals while making decisions.
Consequently, the Kantian philosophy fails to address what individuals are, making it hard to
make moral choices outside his conceptualization making it impossible to make decisions in case
of ethical dilemmas. Indeed, not every individual has the capability to make rational moral
decisions and using Kant’s maxim will be detrimental to the process and the end of ethical
choices.
7. The Ethics of Rights: Contemporary Theories
The rights approach to morality implies that we must respect human dignity while
making judgments. Therefore, human dignity anchors in the ability to make independent choices
and having the moral obligation to respect others (Hinman, 2013). Thus, the rights approach to
ethics implies that one’s rights end where other people’s rights begin.
7.1 Advantages of Rights Approach
The rights-based approach is unique from other ethical theories because it motivates
individuals to act on moral principles rather than what to do in an ethical dilemma (Parrott,
2014). Therefore, individuals must mount on moral reasoning on their way to making ethical
judgments. Another significant advantage of the rights approach to ethics is that it acknowledges
that people may be partial while making decisions especially while affecting the agent of a moral
choice. The method places an individual at the epitome of the decision-making process, and they
can fine-tune the means to make the desired ends (Banks et al., 2013). Significantly, the right's

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 8
method of the ethical conclusion is not theoretically based and focuses on building individuals
and the people around them into better people.
7.2 Disadvantages of Rights Approach
The fact that rights-based do not have theoretical bases makes it more subjective.
Therefore, what is right or wrong depends on what the moral agent perceives good for them.
There is no definitive explanation to handle ethical dilemmas (Banks et al., 2013). The absence
of boundaries of morality makes it hard to tell exactly where someone’s motives and freedom
reaches. For instance, human beings have the fundamental right to life, but sometimes they may
be killed if they infringe on the rights of others. Rights ethics approach does not concern itself
with the rightness or wrongness of an action. Therefore, there are no parameters to judge moral
judgments in the absence of this criterion (Crane & Matten, 2016). Importantly, rights ethics do
not have the goals of an intention. People cherish their rights because they are fundamental to
life, but there is no obligation associated with this freedom. Consequently, the rights approach to
morality can be misleading while advocating for moral judgments.
7.3 Rights Conflict
Rights approach to ethics creates a situation of crisis and conflict while making a
judgment on the morality of an action (Parrott, 2013). Therefore, while carrying out the human
services work rights approach can bring trouble. For example, while offering help to suffering
people such as philanthropist’s activities, there might arise conflict surrounding the rights of the
people. Every individual has a right to protection and safety. However, in case the humanitarian
bodies encounter trouble while trying to save people from hunger they have to defend themselves
from the danger. For instance, when organizations go to provide food and health services in
warring countries they may face attack and killing from the people they envision to help. When
their governments or other bodies come and retaliates in their defense, they destroy the same

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 9
people they purpose to help. Therefore, there is conflict on whether they are supposed to protect
life or engender the loss of lives during their mission.
Everyone has rights to live and cherish life envisioned under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Therefore, the rights of the humanitarian bodies bringing help to the suffering are
paramount. Although the attackers have a right to life, it is significant to attack and kill them to
avoid other people from suffering (Parrott, 2014). Indeed, the attackers in most of the cases are
the people who create this unnecessary suffering among their society denying people their
healthy lives. The rights approach to moral decisions advocates that individuals have rights, but
when they extend these rights to harm others, they have breached the boundaries of others rights
(Crane & Matten, 2016). Therefore, it would be imperative to protect the good of those who
deserve the right to life by ensuring safety for the people providing food and support to the
endangered populations.
9. The Ethics of Character: Aristotle and Our Contemporaries
9.1 Difference between Ethics of Nature and Other Ethical Theories
The Kantian and utilitarian theories emphasize the intention and consequences
consecutively as the determinants of the morality of an action. Therefore, the two schools of
thought have one thing in common in that they perceive ethics as an explanation of a particular
situation and what ought to be the case in a moral dilemma. However, Aristotle’s character
morality is unique because it purposes to answer the fundamental question of what one ought to
be (Hinman, 2013). Therefore, Aristotle appears to emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of a
character that promotes or inhibits the success of human beings. It would be true to say that
Kantian and utilitarian philosophies used the action-oriented method to ethics while Aristotle
applies the character-oriented strategy raising important philosophical questions which of the
philosophical foundation is useful in solving ethical dilemmas.

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 10
9.2 Advantages of Character-Based Ethics
Like any other type of ethics, character ethics has several advantages. Notably, this type
of ethics allows individuals to look at the implication of their decisions and therefore decide
whether to act (Crossan, Mazutis & Seijts, 2013). Thus, this ethics helps people become virtuous
over time and become good people. Indeed, character ethics allows moral consideration separate
from cultural limits. Therefore, people make more emphasizes on what it implies to be human
rather than reflecting on moral predicaments (Peters, 2013). Importantly, virtue ethics allows
secular and religious moral foundation while determining the rightness or wrongness of an
action. Thus, the ethics link practical and theoretical methods of morality. Consequently,
character-based ethics are a compassionate way of making moral decisions because it takes into
account the whole person.
9.3 Disadvantages of Character-Based ethics
Virtue or character ethics appear to be ambiguous by failing to give clear guidelines on
how to respond to the particular occasion of moral decisions such as natural law. Indeed, it is not
possible to use character ethics to settle moral predicaments. It emphasizes on the role of the
individual while making a decision makes it possible for people to act immorally without their
knowledge (Crossan et al., 2013). There is no delineation on how to make judgments in case of
conflict of virtues, and there is a need for rules to guide action. Importantly, the character-based
ethical foundation is selfish because it places personal development at its epitome (Peters, 2013).
It is also significant to highlight that Aristotelian ethics are more masculine as they emphasize
virtues such as bravery and honor. Therefore, it is not sure that people can make an informed
moral decision through this type of moral path.
9.4 Incompatible Behavior
Character-based ethics propounded by Aristotle serves to cultivate certain virtues that
help grow individual to become better (Yu, 2013). Therefore, specific attributes are incompatible

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 11
with the ethics of Aristotle. The medical profession is an area that requires practitioners to act
with the utmost responsibility. Consequently, it will be contradictory to act indifferent while
dealing with clients and patients as a doctor. The core values of doctor oath declare the
practitioner's commitment to engender and strengthen the appropriate resolve among physicians
to demonstrate integrity such as compassionate and honesty (Cruess, Cruess & Steinert, 2016).
Therefore, the bleach of this virtue to act with complacency while performing one's duty will be
incompatible with virtue ethics as explained by Aristotle (Crossan et al., 2013). It is the role of a
doctor to nurture the treatment environment for their patients, collaborate with them, and aid than
in making therapy choices consistent with the recuperation process for the patients. Therefore, in
such a situation, the doctor has the sole responsibility to ensure that they help their clients make
progress without considering the preferences of the patient. Consequently, indifference doctors
may hinder the attainment of the doctor’s profession code of ethics and the realization of virtue
ethics by Aristotle.

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 12
References
Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., ... & Moore, N.
(2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary
Social Science, 8(3), 263-277.
Beckett, C., Maynard, A., & Jordan, P. (2017). Values and ethics in social work. Sage.
Broberg, M., & Sano, H. O. (2018). Strengths and weaknesses in a human rights-based approach
to international development–an analysis of a rights-based approach to development
assistance based on practical experiences. The International Journal of Human
Rights, 22(5), 664-680.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and
sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and
character strengths in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567-
581.
Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., & Steinert, Y. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching medical professionalism:
supporting the development of a professional identity. Cambridge University Press.
Hinman, L. (2012). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory. Nelson Education.
Hinman, L. (2013). An Ethics Inventory: Discovering your own moral beliefs. Cengage learning.
Kant, I. (2013). Moral Law: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Routledge.
Kosiewicz, J. (2015). Why Pluralism, Relativism, and Panthareism: An Ethical Landscape with
Sport in the Background. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research, 66(1), 75-
87.
Kusch, M. (2017). Epistemic relativism, scepticism, pluralism. Synthese, 194(12), 4687-4703.
Parrott, L. (2014). Values and ethics in social work practice. Learning Matters.

ETHICS IN HUMAN SERVICE 13
Peters, J. (Ed.). (2013). Aristotelian Ethics in Contemporary Perspective (Vol. 21). Routledge.
Siegel, H. (2013). Relativism refuted: A critique of contemporary epistemological
relativism (Vol. 189). Springer Science & Business Media.
Singer, P. (Ed.). (2013). A companion to ethics. John Wiley & Sons.
Wry, T., & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Contextualizing the categorical imperative: Category
linkages, technology focus, and resource acquisition in nanotechnology
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 117-133.
Yu, J. (2013). The ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of virtue. Routledge.
Zuckerman, E. W. (2017). The categorical imperative revisited: Implications of categorization as
a theoretical tool. In From Categories to Categorization: Studies in Sociology,
Organizations and Strategy at the Crossroads (pp. 31-68). Emerald Publishing Limited.