Ethics Across The Professions Pdf Download

BibGuru offers more than 8,000 citation styles including popular styles such as AMA, ASA, APSA, CSE, IEEE, Harvard, Turabian, and Vancouver, as well as journal and university specific styles. Give it a try now: Cite Ethics across the professions now!

The most up-to-date professional ethics reader available, Ethics Across the Professions: A Reader for Professional Ethics, Second Edition, analyzes the complex ethical issues that arise in such fields as engineering, finance, healthcare, journalism, and law. Featuring a wide array of both classic and contemporary sources, it ranges from works by Aristotle and Kant to selections by Michael Bayles, Sissela Bok, Paul Ekman, and Thomas Nagel. The book is organized topically and includes detailed chapter introductions, several practical case studies at the end of each chapter, and provocative discussion questions. The second edition includes reading and discussion questions for each article, fifteen new articles, five new cases, and an expanded chapter on philosophical ethics, including feminist ethics.

Download 🔥 https://fancli.com/2y3Bbv 🔥

Classroom-based ethics education, in health professions education programs at a university in the United States, was explored in a pilot study to determine a basis for creating an interprofessional experience for ethics education. Course faculty were interviewed using a semi-structured guide, and data were qualitatively analyzed. There was some overlap, but more variation, across the programs with regard to content covered, learning objectives, and pedagogy. An opportunity exists for greater comprehensiveness and consistency across the programs. Drawing on the results of our study, we propose an approach to interprofessional education for ethics. This approach includes interprofessional small group discussions focused on management strategies for ethical dilemmas relevant to all represented healthcare professions. Ethics is an ideal starting point for interprofessional education, because it is central to all health professions' education and practice.

The Daniels Fund Program in Professional Ethics Education

is dedicated to providing support for Mines faculty to integrate principle-based ethics into their curricula.

Mines is the first STEM-focused university to receive Daniels Fund grants for ethics.

The Herb and Karen Baum Chairship of Ethics in the Professions enables the Baum Chair to bring together other Drake faculty members with research and teaching interests in ethics into an ongoing forum on ethics and the world of practice to engage the campus in broader discourse.

In contrast, the emerging philosophy and approach to IPE at Columbia is focused less on specific tasks completed by each role, and more on shared values and ways to work together to produce better health care for the patient. The initiative began with monthly gatherings of leadership and faculty from eight programs/schools to think about and discuss the silos that divided them. Through narrative methods, the group began to recognize that ultimately more aspects of their respective professions united them rather than divided them. After exploring the commonalities of care of the sick, the faculty designed and executed credit-bearing seminars for mixed groups of students from all eight disciplines. The Spring 2020 semester marks the ninth year of these campus-wide IPE Seminar courses. Knowing how critical well-functioning teams are in health care, these seminars help to develop the wherewithal to work seamlessly, effectively, and respectfully together. Our courses open up urgent questions about health, illness, and care while absorbing each of the multitude of perspectives on these topics.

The sponsors of this conference included a question mark at the end of the title to my talk. I think there is no better way to begin this accompanying paper (prepared after my presentation) than to point out that its title does not have a question mark. The question mark is absent because there is, I believe, nothing questionable about teaching ethics across the engineering curriculum. Ethics, as I will show here, fits nicely into every engineering course, from a first year Introduction to the Profession to analytic courses like Thermodynamics, from Calculus to senior design. I shall show this by giving a few examples of what can be done in engineering's most analytic courses. But, before I can show anything, I must explain what I am, and am not, proposing.

"Ethics" has at least three senses in English: it can be 1) a synonym for ordinary morality, 2) the name for a field of philosophy, or 3) the name for a set of special (morally permissible) standards (for example, engineering ethics). The beginning of wisdom in the teaching of ethics across the curriculum is being clear about what you mean by "ethics".

I shall use "ethics" in a third sense here. "Ethics" (in this sense) refers to those special, morally permissible standards of conduct every member of a group wants every other member of that group to follow even if that would mean having to do the same. Ethics applies to members of a group simply because they are members of that group. To say that ethical standards are "special" is to say that they do not apply to everyone. Research ethics applies to researchers (and no one else); Hopi ethics, to Hopis (and no one else); and engineering ethics, to engineers (and no one else). While it is a conceptual truth that rational agents are subject to (ordinary) morality, their subjection to ethics (in this third sense) is a contingent truth. One can be a decent human being without ethics (in this third sense of "ethics").

To say that ethics (for example, engineering ethics) applies only to members of the relevant group (engineers) is not to say that the standards in question may not resemble those of another group (or even be identical word for word). It is, rather, to identify the origin of the standard, the domain over which it has jurisdiction, and those who have authority to revise, interpret, or repeal it. Even when the ethics of two groups are identical, they need not have been and in time may not be.

Something similar is true of the relation of ethics to (ordinary) morality. Engineering ethics in fact includes standards of ordinary morality, for example, honesty (don't lie, cheat, or steal). Engineering ethics differs from ordinary morality, insofar as it does differ, only in demanding more ("a higher standard"). For example, honesty for an engineer includes a duty of candor that goes beyond ordinary morality. To say that engineering ethics applies only to engineers is not to deny any similarity between engineering ethics and (ordinary) morality but to deny that ordinary people are bound by whatever additional obligations engineers take on.

"Ethics" (in this third sense) is not the plural of "ethic". An ethic, a way of living, may or may not be moral. Ethics (in the third sense) is always moral in at least two senses. First, it is moral because, by definition, ethics is "morally permissible", moral in the weak sense of "not immoral". But ethics is also always moral in a stronger sense, "immoral not to". The ethics of a group are always morally binding on its members (even though not morally binding on ordinary moral agents). The members of the group cannot act unethically without doing something morally wrong.

Ethics-as-special-standard thus suggests a question neither ethics-as-morality nor ethics-as-study does. How is it possible for a standard to be at once special (that is, not part of ordinary morality) and yet morally binding? The answer is simple (though its defense is not): Rational agents do not (except by mistake) set standards for themselves or others without some benefit in view, a benefit they believe they cannot otherwise achieve (or achieve as well). If we call a practice "cooperative" when the benefits that justify each in doing as the practice requires depends (in part at least) on others in the practice doing the same, then violating a rule of a cooperative practice is cheating (that is, taking unfair advantage). All else equal, cheating is morally wrong; hence, following the rules of such a practice is, all else equal, morally required.2

Ethics resembles law in being a special standard, that is, a standard applying to those it applies to for reasons beyond mere rational agency. Like law, ethics is relative. Ethics differs from law in its closer connection with (ordinary) morality. Law can be immoral # or, at least, whether law can be is a question that enduring approaches to law answer differently. Ethics, in contrast, can no more be immoral than counterfeit money can be money. "Thieves ethics", "Nazi ethics", "torturers' ethics", and the like should always wear scare quotes. Because ethics is closer to morality than law, it can depend on morality ("conscience") for enforcement more than law can.

This third sense of ethics seems to dominate discussions of ethics among members of professions. That is not surprising. A profession is a number of individuals organized so that they can earn a living by openly serving a certain moral ideal in ways beyond what law, market, and (ordinary) morality require. A group cannot be a profession without setting itself special (morally permissible) standards, that is, without developing its own ethics (in the third sense).

Yet, while ethics is necessary for a group to be a profession, it is not sufficient. Many groups with ethical standards are not professions. For purely conceptual reasons, they belong to another class of entity. Charities, fraternal orders such as the Masons or Elks, and other philanthropic groups cannot be professions because they are not organized to help their members earn a living. Labor unions, trade associations, and other organizations of self-interest, though organized to help members earn a living, are not organized to help them earn that living by serving a moral ideal. A business with a code of ethics, though organized in part to serve a moral ideal, is not organized to help members earn a living. Those who earn their living from the business, the employees, are not members but agents; those who are more like members, the owners or principals, earn a profit, not a living, from the business (and, indeed, as owners, may be wholly inactive).3 2351a5e196