From the Director

Dr. Daniel E. Wueste

I returned from Australia on July 2.  I had been there to do some work with faculty and graduate students in the School of Management at the University of South Australia and to give one of the keynote talks at the 19th annual meeting of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics at St. Johns College, University of Queensland

http://www.stjohns.uq.edu.au/aapae2012/overview.htm

A central idea in my keynote talk, “Trust Me I’m a Professional: Exploring the conditions and implications of trust for the professions,” is that client trust in a professional is largely explained by the client’s belief that the professional is deeply committed to the goals/purposes of the profession.  That commitment is revealed (or shown to be lacking) in the fit between professional conduct and the norms of professional practice (professional ethics).  Why?  Because many of these norms, in particular the most basic principles of a professional ethic, arise from the goals/purposes of professional practice; they articulate professional responsibilities, in the sense that they delineate what is required for the success of the enterprise.

For example, ethical principles of the research enterprise, such as those that forbid falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, are straightforwardly connected to success in the practice of scientific research.  Similarly, confidentiality is required in the practice of psychology, psychiatry, or medicine generally, as well the practice of law, for example.  One thing that emerges with recognition of the fact that these principles are intimately connected to the purpose(s) of professional practice is that they belong to the practice/enterprise (they are intrinsic rather than extrinsic) and thus are owned by those who choose to become part of it.

One of the wonderful things about a conference such as the AAPAE conference is that a conversation that starts there often continues via email, for example, prompting one to think about things from a different perspective or confront a difficulty that one had not considered or fully appreciated.

I met Dr. Hugh Breakey (Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Griffith University, Australia) at the conference and the conversation that began there has continued via email.  Dr. Breakey asked a very good question.  Granting my point about the connection between the purpose of an institution or practice and the responsibilities of professionals, he wrote, I wonder, “what [do] we do when the purpose is contested by those inside and outside the institution?”  I want to share a bit of my reply to his query as well as an observation about the significance of his question outside of an email exchange between scholars.

First, here’s a portion of my reply:  “As you note, the purpose of an institution may be contested either by those inside it or people on the outside.  Competing ideas about the purpose of an institution may entail strikingly different normative expectations.  With the legal profession, for example, much turns on whether its purpose is thought to be achieving justice, or resolving disputes, so as to maintain order or achieve economic efficiency, or clearing the docket quickly, for example.  I think that questions of institutional purpose should be addressed and answered by an institution's stakeholders, that is, those who work within it as well as those who are impacted by its operations.  At the very least such questions require careful consideration of the interests of both of these groups in light of what is in fact doable.  Addressing the question from only one side —that of practitioners or those served by the practice— won’t do, I think, because, among other things, the authority/validity of institutional norms (in the sense in which they are elements of a professional ethic) depends on their acceptance by folks on the inside as well as stakeholders on the outside.”

While reading about the political campaigns that are now well underway, I have found myself thinking about the propriety (mostly, I confess, the impropriety) of some of the moves being made in political advertisements.  Put another way, I have been thinking about ethics in the context of a political campaign.  In particular, I have found myself thinking in terms suggested by Dr. Breakey’s question.  That is, I have been thinking about the norms of the practice (of campaigning) rather than the rules and principles of what Paul Camenisch calls “ethics plain and simple.” [Paul F. Camenisch, “Business Ethics: On Getting to the Heart of the Matter,” Business and Professional Ethics Journal Volume 1, Issue 1 - Fall 1981 pp. 59 – 69).   But then, I wonder, are my thoughts about what’s acceptable or not based on a mistaken idea about the purpose of a campaign.  You see, quite a lot turns on whether the purpose of a campaign is to provide voters with what they need to make an informed choice when they go to the polls or, what seems very different, simply to win an election.  Perhaps neither of these descriptions captures the true purpose of a campaign.  That’s a very real possibility.  But either way —we’re closing in on the significance of Dr. Breakey’s question beyond a scholarly exchange— it emerges that disagreement or a lack of clarity about purpose (i.e., the aims or goals of a practice) is ethically significant.  For instance, if those inside a campaign take it that their purpose is simply to win, they may do things they see as quite innocent that others, who reject that characterization, will see as quite simply wrong.  What to do?  That’s an important and difficult question.  Perhaps we could begin with serious discussion among the stakeholders of this practice (i.e., those who work within it as well as those who are impacted by its operations) about its purpose.  Indeed, one might be so bold as to suggest that this sort of thing would be worthwhile in other contexts, for example, intercollegiate athletics, where, in the case of Penn State at any rate, it has been suggested that an idea about purpose (it’s all about winning) can be toxic and have tragic consequences.

Your comments on what I have said here, as well as anything else that appears in Issues and Perspectives, are welcome. 

We appreciate your interest in and support of the Rutland Institute for Ethics.