ETHICS AS A SCIENCE True to its social scientific base, the method of attaining agreement is not one of referring to traditional sources, no matter how revered, but of rational inv estigation, logical deliberation and democratic resolution.But, as she rightly recognises, she is not the first to ask the question.In.
Foucault (2000) and Young (1990) have grappled with the implications of postmodernism for. ![]() It explores the murky wa ters of postmodern relativism, which works against professions such as social work taking a strong ethical stance against injustice. It expl ores some philosophical argume nts supporting the search for moral universals, no matter how minimal they might be, and advo cates the enduring utility of ethical codes, despite their limitations. By its very nature ethics has a transcendent quality and Habermass groundbreaking ethical schema is describ ed for its enduring fit with the Western philosophical tra dition and its compatibility with social work thinking on ethics. INTRODUCTION Hlschers (2005) question, Does postmodernism have a moral, e thical and values base appears as something of a parad ox. But, as she rightly recognis es, sh e i s n ot th e f i rs t t o a sk the question. In the social sciences Bauman (1995), Benhabib (1992), Foucault (2000) and Yo ung (1990) have grappled with the implications o f postmodernism for ethics and morality. In social work Atherton and Bollard (2003), Gray (1995), Hugman (2003, 2005), Parton (1994) and Walker (2001), among others, have critically examined the ethical implications of the so- called postmodern turn in social work. In this paper the auth ors draw on the work of Berman (2000) in trying to unravel the high moral ground of pos tmodernism; engage in a re-evaluation of the impact of key figures in modern Western ph ilosophy such as Wittgenstein and, e specially, Ha bermas; and consider the implic ations of their work for social work. Gray, M. Lovat, T. The shaky high moral ground of po stmodernist ethics. In postmodern terms ethical judgments and processes remain open-ended, rel ational and context-specific. T h e r e c a n b e n o u n i v e r s a l transcendental values such as human rights and social justice w hich apply to all people everywhere. In short, there can be no universally agreed-upon norms or codes; rather, each norm or code needs to be discursively constructed in particular situations in a process which can never be complete. In t his r espe ct i t mak es no sens e to talk abou t mor al c erta inty, and so postmodernity is seen as contributing to the loss of the ability of modern instituti ons to ensure the moral conduct of individuals (Hl scher, 2005:239). Ethics as moral philosophy makes no pretence to prescribe or en force standards of moral conduct, but r ather highlights th e complexity of moral matters and the need for a deep understanding of morality so that individuals might choose or commit themselves to behave morally (Gray, 1993, 1995, 1996). Philosoph ically, the limitati ons of ethics have been well documented (Williams, 1985). The p ostmodern turn in ethics co mes from social theory or the transforming of ethics into a social science. This turn bec ame evident in t he 1960s, when utilitarianism established its dom inance as the most acceptable eth ica l me tho d b y wh ich the complex issues of modern pluralist societies could be addressed (cf. Lovat, 2003, 2004). It was an era that saw, in extreme instances, ethical decisions be ing made by committees using checklists and computing scores. The decision which scored high est was the decision enacted, regardless of any given sense of right and wrong accor ding to the traditional view. Where decisions of this sort determined matters of life and dea th, as in the hospital ethics committee, for instance, the law of the land would often fortif y this utilitarian approach to right and wrong by deeming the decision of such a committee, us ing such a method, to be the most powerful defe nc e s ho ul d a ma tt er co me to c o u r t. Es p ec i ally when constituted by the requisite collection of stake holder representatives charged by the institution with the task of determining ethical proto col, in the way in which Hlsc her (2005) writes, the power of such a committee to re-write t he rights and wrongs of the pa st has been determinative in many instances.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |