The ethics and rights debate in the helping professions

Utilitarianism lends its theory to the branch of ethics that has been called consequentialism. In this idea “the classical utilitarian regards an action as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it doesn’t”.

There are numerous problems with this idea but the major one stems originally from Marx’s critique of Hegel where he demonstrated by exploring capitalism that the focus on “goals” does not account for the present, which all too often includes such things as poverty, misery and desperation. Further, consequentialism does not account for the nature of false consciousness.

In today’s, terms we might refer to this as the influences of the media. Utilitarianism underwrites neo-liberalism replete with its own meta-narratives and concomitant contradictions. Ethics is distinctly Eurocentric and probably totally out of place in a multicultural society. A number of “ethical” dilemmas are likely to be irreconcilable unless they are enforced by laws.

Utilitarianism is sometimes referred to in philosophy as “Duty, Happiness, Perfection”; or “THE RIGHT AND THE GOOD”… a moral law that states something “ought to be”. Importantly, any ethical system based upon this philosophy is couched in abstract idealism and transcends the setting in which the issues occur - it loses touch with reality - and imposes a romantic/transcendent solution.

It could be argued that a modern system of Ethics for the Helping Professions aims to take a more holistic approach, one that gives focus to a rights-based ethical practice. However, a jurist might ask what kind of system of rights (or ethics) do we have if we cannot enforce it in court? Hence, ethics does not placate the problems of society or the individual it creates an “ideal type”.

There are undoubtedly people who experience immense pain in the here and now. What would one put in place of current counselling and psychotherapeutic practices to help these people? Masson suggests self-help groups that are leaderless and no money is exchanged. Another option is the exploration of the arts. This is happening with some consciously diverse people through Brut Art but it is experimental and limited. The bottom line is when there are no power relations it is almost impossible for people to act unethically.

The major problem with this idea

In a society truly focused on civil liberty where everyone has protection under the law can we say we have no need for ethical or moral principles? The anarchist Sorokin (1957) argued that “the best source of ‘social mirror’ of the ethical mentality and respective forms of conduct, or the mores is usually given by the totality of the ‘official’ laws of a given group, plus its moral prescriptions”.

For Sorokin the ethical mentality was also the most authoritarian. Following this theory it would appear that having eliminated the core of the authoritarian welfare state we have simply substituted one authoritarian system for another and a more discursive means of controlling behaviour through organisations that resemble those of the 18th century guilds. These guilds acted as a form of protectionism for the professional elite.

It is now estimated that one in five people in Australia suffer from depression, this is surely the most pressing ethical dilemma for the helping professions and it requires political and social change not philosophical and ethical deliberation.