Should Professional Ethics Influence Personal Decisions

¶ … duties of disclosure, confidentiality etc. defined in clinical and other professional relationships are binding in personal relationships (Fienberg, 2005). While John may choose to use such guidelines as a barometer for his personal behavior, there is no stipulation that he need do so. So, John needs to decide this issue from own perspective and according to his own needs, desires, and expectations; in other words based on his own personal sense of ethics.

Ethics can be simply defined as the moral principles that should direct a group or a person's behavior (Williams, 2011). According to Williams (2011) the divisions in Western philosophy divide the notion of ethics into three different types: The Aristotelian notion that virtues such as generosity, honesty, justice, charity, etc. consist of dispositions for people to act in ways that lead to the benefit of both society and the person possessing them. The Kantian notion that humans are bound to the categorical imperative stating that one must respect other rational beings. 3.

The notion from utilitarianism that the guiding principle of human behavior should be to act in a manner that produces the greatest benefit for the greatest number of other people. If we assume that John's personal system of morals/ethics encompasses these classic definitions, then we can assume that John will inform his partner regarding his past; however, he is not bound by a "duty to warn" principle that relates to the principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance associated with clinical or other professional relationships (Zacharides & Cabrera, 2012).

By informing his partner of his past he is being honest and open which are attributes he most likely expects from his partner, he is avoiding future issues associated with trust, he is demonstrating that he is willing to move forward with his life despite these issues, and he is acting in accordance with a classic notion of morality and human rights (Ward, Gannon, & Vess, 2009). However, he also risks rejection, a breach of his own confidentiality, being labeled by others, and possible ridicule.

John's dilemma revolves around defining what exactly is "the greatest good" regarding disclosing information. This leads to a discussion of absolute and relative ethics. The notion of absolute ethics assumes that there are objective truths that can be known (Griffin, 1986). Thus, the greatest good or the greatest benefit is a dichotomous expression with no in-betweens. However, with the restrictions of human perception, understanding, and our restrictive physical presence it is extremely difficult to access or experience an absolute truth (Benedict, 1934).

Relative ethics consists of behaviors that fall on a continuum between "the greatest good" or "the greatest benefit" and the "greatest harm" (Benedict, 1934). The problem here is that behavior that is deemed ethical by one particular person/group/situation may be considered to be highly unethical by another person/group/situation. Thus, in this situation context plays an.