Personal Values & Professional Ethics

Ethics

)ersonal-alues

)rofessiohnicasl

TpoShasneooedoArtcehfvemiiorsFetfiho?eoteonyhcrpiCieaectorysdsaoe,tlPmn-.e,?a-.yrc?sahsFnwoueerglelebs(nrSteeseArcrasFSottveon)oa.stmibifnshdeCelcitrieoeatoihobnvaceltEnerdufolrvtwreetcehirthonshhdytiiitsnhacenjaeSoutssobtsucsifeeofpittfAcyemirseponenretil--py os

ofEthicCsh.angainpgrofesscioondo'esfcon- cifictoforestedrisff,icutoltinterpr(etspecitahlellyandethica),ndcounterpro-

ducmt igchatucsoensidecroanbtlreoversyd. uctivtoemotivateinthgicbael havi(oRradcli1ff9e98O). therwsillsuppothrte

Somweilsl upptohretcurrewnot rdianngd currenwtordinagndopposcehangSe.omme aywanwt hichevceordebetterre-

oppocsheanagned,othewrsilsl egereat flectstheirpersonvaal lues.

meriintthenewwordiRnegg. ardwlehsast, Toooftenit,seemfso,restaevrsoiaddiscussoifoenthicess, peciawlhlyeonne

weneedisa codethatarticulatethsecore ormorepartieasredogmataincd"knowt"heyarerightH. oweveert,hicisborn

professivoanlauleosfallforesteArfsir.st stepth,enis,distinguiosuhprinegrsonal

valufersomthecorvealuoefsforestry.

whewn erespotnodconfliacnt dconsternabtyiotrnyintgodevelopprocedures andstandafrodrsassesseitnhgicjauldgmenWtsh.enresolvitnhgeconflicittsis, importatnotdistingubisehtweepnersonvalueasndcorperofessiovnaaluleUs1. -

fimatdSy,AFneedtosidentitfhyecorperofessiorensapl onsibialintidedsearly

outlinteherulefsormeetintghosreesponsibilities.

ByKennethKipnisand

David B.South

This articleis intendedto help tion,requiretswodistinctivveirtuesa: Idahow, emaynevermeetanyonwe ho

memberdsiscuspsrofessioneathl icsby willingnestos entertainviewsin oppo- isfundamentaldlyifferentI.t canseem

clarifyinwghatisirrelevanatndwhatis sition to our own, and a commitment blesseidndeedto livein sucha place.

pertinento identifyingcoreforestry to try to formthe mostresponsible But eventhere, national ethical issues

ethicsW. e startby layingout some judgmenotnthemattear thand.

maynotbecoveredbytheprevailing

background.

localmoralityM. oralityt,hesetof be-

Ethics and Moralities

liefswegrewupwith,oftenfaltersIn

Absolutists and Relativists

In workingtowardanunderstand- thefaceof newandtroublingprofes-

Twocommonposturehsavetended ingofethicsit,isoftenhelpfutlobegin sionaldilemmasF. or exampleo, ur

to giveethicsa badnameA: bsolutism with morality.When we speakof teachersdid not cover the ethical com-

and Relativism. Absolutists believe moralityw, hatwehaveinmindispeo- plexitieosfpesct ontrolW. ethusenter

theyareinpossessioofnEternaMl oral ple'sbeliefsabouttheirobligations. ourprofessiownsithournativemoral-

Truth,universalblyindinguponevery- Most of uswere raisedin communities itiesasour originalbaggageIf. our

one. Ethical decisions are either black withonepredominanstetofideasa,nd professiognivesusnothingto supple-

orwhite,andallright-thinkinpgeople aswe maturewe typicallylearnthat ment these, our moralities often are

know the difference. On the other peoplefromotherbackgroundhsave insufficientot resolvceonflicot r help

hand,Relativisthsavenoticedmany differenitdeasabouthowtheyshould usdiscernthehonorablwe ay.

contradictorysetsof EternalMoral behave.

Even if we are convinced we are

Truths,all commandingequalcertainty (and all ethicaldecisionsare gray).If eithertheAbsolutistosr the Relativistwsereright,therewouldbe little pointin discussinegthicsT. he

Absolutist knows the answer in ad-

vance,andthe Relativistknowsthereis

Two problemstypicallyemerge rightandothersarewrongw, ecanstill whenweapplyournativemoralitietso tryto developanindependenstandissueinsprofessioneathl icsT.hefirstis pointfromwhichissuecsanbe dethe problemof disagreemenIt. is cidedW. henwestartryingrationally clearf,orexampleth, atsocietiedsiffer to decidewhoisright,lookingat the in their ideasabout how parents justificationfosrbothsidesw, eareinshoulddisciplinechildrenand how volvedin a procesosf self-reflection.

no answer.

children should respect parents. Ethicsisnothingmorethansystematic

It follows that two conditions must Samoamn oralityisdifferenftromthat criticalreflectionaboutour obliga-

bemetin orderto derivesomething found in Sweden. What do we do tionsA. ndprofessioneathl ics--infor-

from a genuineconversatioanbout whenthereis disagreemebnet tween estryf,or example--iswhatonegets

ethics.First, therecanbe no room for moralitiesIs?theotherculturealways whena professiolnearnsto carryon

dogmatismW.emusttryto haveopen wrong?Do they lack a developed suchadiscussioinnternally.

mindsandbewillingto changeour moral consciousness?

views if there are valid reasons for

Sometimewseavoiddisagreement Personal Values and Ethics

doingso.And secondw, e shouldnot byavoidingdiscussioBnu. tif wecon- Justaswebringamoralityintoour

besoopen-mindethdatourbrainsfall verse,we may discovedr eepdiffer- professions,oeachof ushasa setof

out.BetweetnhedogmatiAcbsolutist encesF.orexamplefo, restemrsayenter prioritizepdersonvaal luesV.aluesmay

andthecapriciouRselativisatreforest- ourfieldwithvariouspreprofessionabl ethoughotfasendpointsinexplana-

erswhoaspiretoresponsibilintyeth- moralitieasn, daccordingSlyA, Fmem- tionsof actions--anyaction,likeap-

icaljudgmentsP.robablmy ostforest- bersmay haveconflictingnotions plyinga silviculturatrleatmentO. ne

erswantto beableto givea goodac- aboutheprofessioonb'sligationIsf .all canaskJones",Whydidyouapplya

countof theiractionsM. anyforesters wehaveisourindividuaml oralitya, ll herbicide to this stand?"

"Well, I wanted to control the

weeds."

Ethical dilemmas involve

"Why did you want to control

weeds?"

hard choices that force us to

giveup somethingimportant.

Jonesanswers", To grow more wood."ForJonesg,rowingmorewood isoftena decisivreeasonforsuppressingcompetingvegetation.

NowJonesis asked", Why do you

will listento criticismsand ask,What

istherighthingforforestetrosdo?In productivdeiscussiownsithothersw, e

learn to take into account what we

wantto growmorewood?"

of us--as different as we are--are

At thispointJonesdoesn'ktnow

stuck.Our differingmoral beliefs whatto say."If youdon'tunderstand

probablcyannopt rovidea pluralistic whyI wantto increasweoodproduc-

professiownithanethicacl onsensus. tion,I can'texplainit to you."Jones's

haveoverlookeadndtodisregarwdhat Mattersmaybedifferentin small abilityto accounftor the actionhas has been shown to be irrelevant. homogeneocuosmmunitieIsn.aniso- reacheda limit. ForJonesg, rowing Ethics, asa form of human conversa- latedruralvillagein, sayA, labamoar more wood is an ultimate value. Now

July2000

explanationfosrincreasinwgoodproductionwill vary.Somemaywantto

increasperofitso;thersmaywanttosequestemr orecarbons;omemaywant

to meet the material needs of an in-

sonalor professionvaal lue?Morefa- beableto makeprogresisn working miliarto usareourpersonavlaluesA: outsoundprinciplefsorprofessional forestemr aypreferminticecreamto practice. pistachioP. lainlythe forestedr oesn't It isnotsomuchwhatoneperson

like mint ice cream as a forester: It is shouldcareabout, but ratherwhat the

creasinpgopulations; tillothersn, ot onlyapersonaplreference. caringaboutprofitsm, aywantto in- The forestemr ayalsoprefervalid creastehesupployfarenewabelenergy argumenttso invalidones,truth to sourceP.ersonvaal luevsary.

Wetrytodevelorpoutineasndskills

goodforestesrhouldcareaboutT. he purposeof settingdownSAF'score professionvaallueissto allowthatdis-

torealiztehegoodws ewantmoreofin

our livesand to avoid the evilsof which

Personal values are not relevant to

wewantlessW. hile somemaywork for world peace,othersmay seek wealthornotorietyA. t thislevel,what

issuesin professionael thics.

Is goodandbaddependos n personal

valuesC. ounselingand deliberation falsehoodc,larityto obscuritTy.hese, tinctionF. orthoseofusin forestryth, e

canhelpeachofusmakeauthentidce- howevear,renotmerepersonaplrefer- valuesarticulatedby Leopold(1949)

cisionsthat expressour mostpro- encesT.heyarepreferenctehsatevery andPinchot(1947), asimportantas

foundlycherishedvaluesW. e canre- goodphilosophesrhouldhave.Simi- theseprofessioncaol mmitmentasre,

flecton ourvaluesr,evisingandre- larly,a goodforesteor ughtto likeit maynonethelecsosnflictI.t isthebasic

orderingthem.

whenaforesitssavefdrombeingcon- ethicatlaskof theprofessiotno come

Personal values are not relevant to vertedtopasturelanadndoughtonot to a consensuson how theseand other

issueisn professioneatlhicsI.f wehave like it when cowsdestroynewly corevaluesshouldbe articulatedand,

to decide whether to use a certain plantedseedlingsF.oresterwshodo equalliymportanth,owtheyshouldbe

brandoftreepaint,it canhappenthat not careeitherway haveprobably prioritized.

choiceX mostperfectleyxpressoense made an error in career choice. The

EthicalfinesseB. ecauscehoosing

foresterp'sersonvaal luewshilechoicYe valuea foresterplaceson protecting amongconflictingcorevaluescanbe

mostperfectleyxpressaensother'Tsh: e soilandwaterqualityisnotjustaper- difficulat ndpainfuli,t isoftenuseful

"right"decisiofnoronemaybeatodds sonalvaluethe foresterhappensto to try to findwaysin whichtheissue

withthe"right"decisiofnortheother. haveI:t isa corevalueforthepractice canbe sidesteppeodr madeto go

If wetakethisviewpoinitn deciding of forestryW. henwetalkaboutcore awayO. ftenit ispossiblteoassembale

anyethicailssuewearemerelydeter- professionvaalluesw, espeakof pur- checklisotf strategiefosrevadingthe

miningwhichforesteirsgoingto be posesthat eachSAFmembershould hard choice. Is there an economical

happywiththeoutcomeIt.isoftendif- have in common with others. Core wayofcontrollinpgestws ithoutusing

ficultto accounftorpersonavlalues. valuems akeit possiblfeorSAFmem- effectivepesticidesE?thicalfinesse

Howcanoneforestedrefenda prefer- berstoreachagreemenotnsomeissues (Jameto1n984)letsusavoidhavingto

encefor yellowtreepaintwhenan- ofprofessioneatlhics.

giveup somethinpgreciouss,uchas

other likes blue?

integrityT.hereisnothingwrongwith

In reasoninagboutpersonavlalues ValueAnalysis

ethicaflinesseIn. deedi,t ishelpfutlo

we sometimesask, "What can I live

In dealingwithethicadl ilemmasa, havea checklisotfmaneuvefrosrget-

with?WhatdoI want?Whatisgoing helpfulstepisto do a valueanalysis. ting out of a dilemma.But profes-

to let me sleepat night?"But such Ethicadl ilemmacsharacteristicainll-y sionael thicsdoesn.otconsisetntirely

questionasrenot questionisn ethics. volve conflict between two or more of finesse. Sometimes hard choices

For all we know, there are murderers corevaluesT.heyinvolvehardchoices mustbemade,andSAFmayeventu-

who sleeplike babieseverynight, thatforceustogiveupsomethinimg - allyhavetodecidaebouat toughethi-

killerswhosewickeddeedsareperfect portant.In settingdownthevalues calquestion.

expressioonfstheirmostprofoundly thatareaffectedbydifferentchoices, Principleosfproj?ssioncaolnducInt.

cherishevdaluesY. etnearlyall of us wecanfocusattentionon theimpor- engagintgheethicaqluestio(nthehard

willagreethatthemurdereisr unethi- tantaspectosf eachoption.Though choicethatpersistasfterallotherpos-

cal,andthusan actioncanexpress wemayhavedifferentmoralitiesand siblesolutionshave been tried and have

deeplyheld,reflected-upopnersonal personavl alues,if we cansetthese failed),it is a goodideato think in

valuesandyetnotbeethical.

asideandconsideirnsteadonlywhat terms of rules. The result of a successful

goodforestersoughtto be caring conversationin professionaelthics

Core Professional Values

about(if SAFmembercsanagreeto oughto bemorethanmerelya deci-

Hereis a keyto the resolutionof restricdt iscussiojunstto thosecore sion made in the case at hand. If the

somecriticalissuesin professionalvaluesa, nythingelsebeingpersonal decisioinssoundandgroundeidn core

ethicsI:s thevaluein questiona per- rathetrhanprofessionathl)e, nwemay professionvaalluest,henit mightwell

Journaol f Forestry

bemadebyall SAFmemberusnder we considewr hatwouldhappenif Enlightenmehnatsoftenwaitedatthe

similar circumstances. It should be everyonwe ereto do thesameT. he endofdisagreemeCnot.nflictinpgost-

possiblteo stateanethicacl anon--a principleosf anySAFcode(and,in- tions should be set out and defended

rule--tellinpgrofessiofnoarlestehrsow deedi,n allcodesa)reintendetdogov- withgreact areA: llparticipansthsould

to act under those circumstances.

ernthe professionbael havioor f all be concerneednoughto statethem

Sucharulemightbeacandidaftoer SAFmemberFs.orexamplea,lthough preciselayndaspersuasivealsyposst-

inclusionin theCodeof Ethicsp, ro- it maynot discernibldyamagethe ble.Whereexactliysthepointof dis-

agreemenWt?hatkindofdisagreement

isit?Isit adisagreemeonvterpersonal

Codes are best thoughtof as living,

valuesor professionvaal luesW? hat

would convince us that one side was

evolvingdocuments.

correct?

Conclusion

A responsibplreofessiocnonstantly

vidingguidancfeorthewholefieldof professioifna singlemembetrakes debatetshedimensionosf itsprofes-

forestryA. codeofethicsgivesa mea- creditfor the work of another,a wide- sionarl esponsibilitTyh.e finalprod-

sureof protectionto professionalsspreadpracticwe ouldultimatelyde- uctisnot a documentto hangon a

whenclientsoremployerdsirecthem stroySAF'scredibilityT.herearetwo wallorshowtoCongresbsu, trathear

to actunethicallyIt. isonethingto centraql uestionhsere.First,whatare lively and enlighteningdialogue.

refusteocomplyforpersonarel asons, SAF'scoreprofessionraelsponsibili-Within a professione,thicsis best

quiteanothetro refusteo complyfor ties?And second,what are the rules thoughotfasacollectivuendertaking

reasonosfprofessioneathl icsA. strong that,if theywerehonoredw, oulden- bywhichpracticawl isdomis devel-

CodeofEthicswouldbeofgreavt alue ableSAFc, ollectivetloy,meethosere- opedandemployedIt.isasharecdrit-

to SAF(Arnold1976).

sponsibilities?

icalreflectioonnthecommonobliga-

Guardagainstot pichanginSgo. me- tionsasprofessionfaolrestersT.hts

AssessingPrinciples

timesquestionisn professioneatlhics procesisnowunderwayasSAFre-

It is difficult to setout cookbook in- gounanswerebdecausteheyarenot visesitsCodeof EthicsD. uringthis

structionfosrresolvinegthicadl ilem- clearlyaskedG. uardagainsut nwit- procesesa, chnewprinciplsehouldbe

masM. anyissuersequireustodecide tinglychangintghesubjectD. o not givena "valuaenalysitso"ensurt6hat

what responsibilitiaesprofessionaldriftintoa discussiofnpersonvaal l- it reflectascorevalueheldbyprofes-

should and should not assume. Some uesorchangtehetopictolawandin- sional foresters.

problemms aybetoocomplicatetod stitutionalreality--humanartifacts

yieldto a simplerule.Sometimeasll thatcanbecriticizeadndchanged. Literature Cited

that can be done is to list the consider-

ationsthatprofessionaslhsouldtake intoaccounwt,ithouitndicatinhgow theseshouldbeweighedagainsot ne

Considtehreroleofthepro?ssioTno.

be effective,the Code of Ethicsmust

be clear and understandable to forest-

ersA. lthoughit istruethatthemain

ARNOLDK, .R. 1976.Ethicsin SAF--NeededA: code

strongle, gala, ndenforceabJloeu. rnaolfForestry

74:179-81.

JAMETOAN. 1, 984.NursinpgracticTeh: eethicaisl sues EnglewoColdiffsN, J:PrenticHeall.

another. Professions have sometimes purposoefacodeispracticagluidance, LEOPOALD.1,949A. SandCouna{ylmanaNce. wYork

laboredcollectivefloyryearsb, othintellectuallyand politicallyw, orking

actiontsakenbytheSAFEthicsCommitteecanmakeaprofounddifference

OxfordUniversiPtyress. PINGHOGT.,1947.Breakinngewgroun?NewYork

HarcouBrtracJeovanovich.

throughan issue.Codesare best in thewaydilemmasin professionalRADCLIFSF.EJ1., 998C. orevaluese,thicsa,ndforestry

thoughtof asliving,evolvingdocu-

ments. Nevertheless,there are some

usefulstrategiefsor generatinagnd testingprinciples.

ethicsareresolveBd.uttobemeaning- In ForesftbryrumT:helandethic1,51-58B. ethesda,

ful,SAF'scanonsshouldbevigorously supporte(dArnold! 976;Stuar!t994).

MD: SocietoyfAmericaFnoresters. STUARET.,1994.Unethicaplrofessiobneahl avioIrn?

EthicisnJbresetrdy.L, .C.Irland4,17-24P. ortland,

In additionto rulingonspecifiecthics OR: Timber Press.

GeneralizIen. assessinagcodeof casesth, erearemanyotherwaysthat UNGESR.,H.1994C. ontrolltiencghnoloEgthyi:casndthe ethicsi,t isoftenhelpfulto consider SAFcouldfosteranatmosphecreon- responseinbgleineNee?wYorkJ:ohnWiley& Sons

howuniformcompliancweitha rule duciveto ethicalbehavior(Unger

mightchangaecceptepdracticeIst.is !994).ForexampleS,AFcouldestab-

commonplacien ethicsthat actions lishanawardforforestewrshoengage

takenonlybyasmalnl umbeor fpeo- in ethical behavior under difficult cir- KennethI?)onis (e-mail.'kkipnis@

plemayhaveconsequencqeusitedif- cumstances.

hawaiie.du)isproj?ssoDre, partmenotf

ferentfromthesameactionsdoneby NurturedisagreemeOnnte. doesnot PhilosophUy,niversitoyf Hawaii at

nearlyeveryoneW. hatnurseryman- win anargumenbtysilencinogppo- Manoa, Honolulu, HI96822; David B

agersdo maybe permissibeleven nentsT.hosewhodisagreweithuscan Southisproj?ssoSrc,hoolfForestarynd

thoughwewouldnevewr antforesters nearlyalwaytseachussomethinngew lgS'ldliJS?cienceAsu, burnUniverssty,

to actin thatsameway.In generalizing orremindusof somethinfgorgotten. Alabama.

14 July2000

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download