Moral dilemma

Culture

You are a very experienced doctor, you have five dying patients on your hands, each of whom needs a different organ transplant in order to survive. Unfortunately, at the moment there is no organ available for transplantation. It so happened that there is one more, 6 people who dies from a fatal disease, and if he is not treated, he will die much earlier than others. If the sixth patient dies, you can use their organs to rescue five others. However, you have a remedy at your disposal with which you can save the life of the sixth patient. You:

Wait until the sixth patient dies, and then use his organs for transplantation;

Save the life of a sixth patient without the others getting the organs they need.

If you chose the second option, knowing that the medicine would only delay the date of his death a little, would you still do the same? Why?

8. Rogue Robin Hood

You witnessed how a person robbed a bank, but then he did something unusual and unexpected with the money. He transferred them to an orphanage, which lived very poorly, was dilapidated and was deprived proper nutrition, appropriate care, water and amenities. The money greatly benefited the orphanage as it went from poor to prosperous. You:

Call the police, although they will most likely take the money away from the orphanage;

You will not do anything, leaving alone the robber and the orphanage.

7. A friend's wedding

Your best friend or a girlfriend is going to the crown. The ceremony will begin in one hour, however, on the eve of coming to the wedding, you learned that the chosen one (chosen one) of your friend had connections on the side. If your friend connects his life with this person, he is unlikely to be faithful, but on the other hand, if you tell him about it, you will upset the wedding. Will you be able to tell about what you learned to your friend or not?

6. Plagiarism of the report

You are the head of the student council and are faced with a difficult decision for one of your alumni. This girl has always been a worthy student. Throughout the years of her studies, she received only high grades, she has many friends, and perfect behavior. However, towards the end of the school year, she fell ill and did not attend school for a while. She missed three weeks of class, and when she returned, she was told that in one of the subjects she did not live up to in order to finish school perfectly. She was so desperate that, having found a report on the necessary topic on the Internet, she passed it off as her own. Her teacher caught her doing this and sent her to you. If you decide that this is rip-off, then she will not receive a high grade, and, therefore, will not be able to qualify for a budgetary study at the university of her dreams. What would you do?

5. Source of youth

Your loved one is immortal because he and his family drank from the fountain of youth without suspecting anything. You love him very much and you know that this is your destiny. However, the only way to stay with him is to drink from the fountain of youth too. But, if you do this, all your relatives and friends, as well as all your acquaintances, will grow old and, in the end, will die. On the other hand, if you do not drink from the source, you will grow old and eventually die, and the person with whom you are now will never see you again and will be sentenced to eternal loneliness. Which would you choose?

4. Concentration camp

You are a concentration camp inmate. The sadistic guard is about to hang your son, who tried to escape, and tells you to push the stool out from under his feet. He tells you that if you don't, he will kill your other son, who is another innocent prisoner. You have no doubt that he will do exactly as he says. What will you do?

3. Son and granddaughter

Much to your dismay, your son is lying tied up on the tracks, the train is approaching. It so happened that you have time to use the switch and direct the train in the other direction, thereby you can save your son. However, on the other side lies a tied granddaughter, the daughter of this very son of yours. Your son begs you not to kill his daughter or touch the switch. What will you do?

2. Sacrifice of a son

A very angry, psychologically unbalanced man tried to kill your son when he was very young, but then, having killed the child's uncle and aunt, who were looking after him, he never got to the baby. After the murder, you fled underground, but now you find that the prophecy has come true, and that part of the killer's soul has moved into your child. In order to overcome this evil and defeat this person, your son must go to him and allow himself to be killed. Otherwise, after a while your son, with a part of the soul of the villain, can become such himself. The son courageously accepts his fate and decides to go to the villain in order to bring peace. You are as a parent:

Hold him because you feel you have to protect;

Accept his choice.

1. Friendship

Jim works in large company, he is responsible for recruiting employees. His friend Paul applied for a job, but there are several people who are more qualified than Paul and have a higher level of knowledge and skills. Jim wants to give this position to Paul, however, he feels guilty because he has to be impartial. He tells himself that this is the essence of morality. However, he soon changed his mind, and decided that friendship gives a moral right to be partial in some matters. So he gives this job to Paul. Was he right?

If we look in the "Great Encyclopedic Dictionary", we will see that there the definition of the words "morality" and "morality" mean the same thing. It is difficult to agree with this. Even in ancient antiquity, morality was understood as the elevation of a person above himself, it was an indicator of how a person is responsible for his behavior and actions. Morality is closely related to the character and temperament of a person, his spiritual qualities, the ability to moderate and suppress his egoism. Morality presupposes certain norms and laws of behavior in society.

Morality in modern society is based on the principles of not creating obstacles for the other person. That is, you can do whatever you want, as long as you do not harm others. If, for example, you are deceiving another person and it did him harm, then what if it didn’t? Then it is not condemned. This is the moral of our behavior today.

The concepts of "morality and ethics" of tomorrow will go even further. Live as you want, the main thing is not to poke your nose into other people's affairs and someone else's life, if you are not asked. Decide for yourself, not for others, and if you want to help someone, then first ask him if he needs it? Perhaps your views on what is good and what is bad do not coincide at all. And remember: everyone has their own morality. Combine only a few general rules: do not touch someone else, do not encroach on the life of another person, his freedom and property - everything is quite simple.

As if delimiting the concepts of morality and morality, you can give such definitions. Morality can also be called the word "decency", that is, it is the sum of some norms of behavior and prejudices adopted in a given society. Morality is a deeper concept. A moral person can be called one who is wise, non-aggressive, does not want a person evil, sympathizes and empathizes with him, is ready to come to the aid of another. And if morality is more formal and comes down to certain permitted and prohibitive actions, then morality is a more subtle and situational thing.

The main difference between the concepts of "morality" and "morality" is that morality presupposes evaluation by society, neighbors, God, leadership, parents, and so on. While morality is such an internal self-control, an internal assessment of one's thoughts and desires. It does not depend on external factors, these are the inner convictions of a person.

Morality depends on a social group (religious, national, social, and so on), which prescribes certain norms of behavior in this society, its prohibitions and prescriptions. All human actions correspond to these codes. For the proper adherence to these laws, it is supposed to be encouraged from society in the form of respect, glory, awards and even material benefits. Therefore, moral standards are closely related to the statutes of a particular group and depend on the place of their use and time.

Morality, in contrast to morality, has a more universal character. It is not aimed at achieving any benefits and rewards, but at other people. A moral person sees in another person not himself, but his personality, he is able to see his problems, help and sympathize. This is the fundamental difference between these concepts, and morality is most expressed in religion, where love for one's neighbor is preached.

From all of the above, it becomes clear that the concept of morality and morality are different things and how they, in fact, differ.

Entrepreneurial ethics are part of economic ethics and must be viewed against its background and rationale. Insofar as

modern economic ethics realizes itself as an ethics of a framework order, then entrepreneurial ethics is based on a framework order. But here it is necessary to take into account one fundamental circumstance. In practice, the framework order cannot be specified in an ideal form. It has its drawbacks, which are primarily reflected in entrepreneurial ethics. As already noted, the difference between economic and entrepreneurial ethics is that the subject of moral requirements in economic ethics are mainly state institutions, while in entrepreneurial ethics - individual enterprises. The imperfection of the framework order affects primarily economic activity individual enterprises, forced to make additional efforts and take on "responsibility, which is normally at the level of order, in order to fill the resulting vacuum of responsibility. The task of entrepreneurial ethics is to identify this need arising from economic values for the moral responsibility of enterprises and in identifying the possibilities of the enterprise to comply such expectations.Entrepreneurial ethics thematizes the relationship of morality and profit in the management of enterprises and deals with the question of what moral norms and principles can be implemented by enterprises in the conditions modern economy.

Due to the established cultural tradition, concepts such as "economic ethics" or "entrepreneurial ethics" rather refer us to the problem of choice - either ethics or economics - rather than denote something that really exists in reality. economics precisely because there is no ethics there.

Our inherited doubts that morality can become a significant factor in economic decision-making are great indeed. Aristotle advised the "economist" ("head of the family" - approx. Transl.), Who does not want to change his true human nature, to engage in philosophy and politics, but in no case entrepreneurship. The Bible turns the same advice into an image symbolizing the physical impossibility of combining wealth and righteousness: they say, a camel would rather crawl through the eye of a needle than a rich man would go to heaven. Cicero confines himself to the laconic statement that big profits are made by big deception. It took Thomas Aquinas many pages to explain how commerce could turn from vice to virtue. Martin Luther, who was always quite straightforward, simply equated farming with the greed that comes from the Old Testament Adam. We are indebted to Karl Marx for the apodictic theory, according to which the entrepreneur is only a mask that hides the movement of capital, which is immoral in nature, and therefore is forced to obey the laws of this movement, because otherwise he will be simply ruined. Max Weber, although he adhered to a rather bourgeois view, also did not believe that the cruel laws of the market left the individual the possibility of ethical behavior. And finally, the 1973 Nobel Prize laureate economist Milton Friedman came up with a lapidary formula: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.

Against this background, apparently, one should admit that the declared intentions of entrepreneurial structures (concerns or firms), entrepreneurs themselves and their managers to be guided in economic decisions by moral values look no more convincing than the vampire's promises to appear at a donor center to donate his own blood.

As a variant of entrepreneurial ethics related to the area designated as ethics of preferences, consider the concept of business ethics. We proceed from the premise that, for all its independence and significance, business ethics remains a kind of version of the "individualistic" direction of entrepreneurial ethics, because "in most cases, in an individual-ethical perspective, they are guided by the decision-making situation by individual entrepreneurs / managers, without taking into account the structure of the dilemma. caused by the competition ".

Business ethics as a predominantly American version of entrepreneurial ethics occupies one of the central places within the framework of the concepts of entrepreneurial ethics. Its appearance can be attributed to the 1970s. At this time, a certain agreement was established between the scientific community and the business world about the need to raise the "ethical consciousness" of professional businessmen in their business operations, as well as the responsibility of corporations to society. By the early 1980s. business ethics has become one of the main subjects of study for professionals, and most business schools in the United States have included it in their programs. In general, business ethics can be defined as the scientific discipline that studies the application of ethical principles to business situations.

The most relevant in business ethics are questions about the relationship between corporate and universal ethics, social responsibility business, applying general ethical principles to specific decision-making situations, raising the ethical level of an organization, the influence of religious and cultural values on economic behavior... In business ethics, some of the dilemmas that characterize the value inconsistency of the interaction of traditional morality and modern economics are especially acute. Some of the most significant are the "inside information" dilemmas, the "lucrative ties" dilemma, and the "sexual harassment dilemma".

· The "inside information" dilemma. The criterion for the ethical justification of informing higher authorities about violations in the organization is the motive for the act. If the appeal is used not to solve one's own career problems or to take revenge on any particular person, but for the sake of the interests of the business, and if this act is not pursuing personal gain, but is dictated by concern for the welfare of other people, then such behavior can be considered justified from an ethical point of view. Before proceeding to the analysis of real situations, it is necessary to clarify that some people are psychologically inclined to play the role of "fighters for the truth", although in reality they pursue completely different goals. Therefore, it is important not to succumb to the description and interpretation of the situation by the involved and interested parties, but to impartially, on the basis of facts, analyze what happened and take appropriate measures. What can you say about the specific motives of the persons who go to the official information? The desire to make a business message rather than anonymous denunciation is usually based on a strong belief in personal responsibility, backed by a sense of professional honor, religious considerations and loyalty to society.

· The dilemma of "lucrative connections". Solving business and personal problems that runs counter to existing economic, legal and moral norms, by exploiting the position of individuals with privileged access to goods or services, is very common in the business world. The use of beneficial connections can be both personal and corporate. In the event that a certain person endowed with certain powers (ie "using his official position") intends to provide us with a personal service, you need to ask yourself the following questions:

1) Does this person have legal rights to the products or services they provide to you, or is they actually stealing them? What allows him to behave like this in this case? Who actually owns these products or services?

2) Do other people besides you have a similar opportunity? Is the service or opportunity distributed fairly and does everyone in the organization have equal access to it?

The situation with illegal or immoral receipt of certain goods or services is complicated if it is not about personal interests, but about the interests of the organization. Is it permissible to violate the rules in order to make a profitable and useful deal, for example, register an organization, open a new business, get what you are entitled to by law? The moral justification in this case is often the fact that behind all this are the interests of other people: employees of the enterprise, your future customers, consumers of your future product or service, etc. One of the most well-known manifestations of the "profitable relationship ethic" is bribery. From a moral point of view, it is especially important to draw a line between a hidden form of a bribe and a gift. For example, is an invitation to a banquet, a voucher to a sanatorium, payment for a joint tourist trip or, finally, a small gift from a company that would like to conclude a lucrative contract with you as a hidden form of bribe?

Ethical guidelines on this issue should first of all take into account the moral and cultural traditions of a particular country. There are at least three kinds of cultural traditions that underlie modern business operations:

1) "vicious circle" (mutual responsibility),

2) system mutual services and 3) exchange of gifts.

In countries with underdeveloped economies and low culture business relationship most people believe that belonging to a particular “vicious circle” of relatives, friends and close colleagues implies mutual protection and mutual prosperity. Anyone outside this circle is a "stranger" whose intentions must be questioned. This is why business people (like government officials) prefer to do business with people they know and trust.

In a system of mutual services, a gift or service obliges the recipient to return it sometime in the future, but with "interest". And when the service is returned, the donor is obliged to repay for it with an even greater service. Thus, the system of mutual obligations and exchange of services provides access to the closed circle of trusted persons, becoming the basis for conducting business operations. The cultural tradition, closely related to the system of mutual services, presupposes, first of all, the giving of gifts. In a business relationship, giving or receiving a gift means more than being friendly. It is a sign of corporate identity that makes a businessman "his own" and gives him the prospect of profitable deals. By engaging in the traditional exchange of gifts and services and entering a "vicious circle", a businessman can gain trust, facilitate his access to the local market for goods and technologies, and minimize risk in a foreign environment.

The difficulty of participating in a traditional gift exchange is learning to distinguish gifts from bribes. After asking you for a loan, is your business partner engaged in extortion or is he pushing you to join a mutual service system? The criterion can be: a) the size of the amount (the smaller the amount, the less it looks like a bribe); b) the purpose of the money (if the money is supposed to be transferred to a third party, especially one with power, then this is most likely a bribe). In such cases, it is usually advised not to give money to individuals, but to transfer grants for the construction of hospitals and schools, providing technical and expert assistance in organizing public works... The most reliable moral criterion for the admissibility of mutual services is their openness, which allows the best way to dispel extraneous suspicions about the motives and actions of companies and individuals and create trust between business and society.

· The "sexual harassment" dilemma... Women in business are often faced with the problem of sexual harassment. One of the reasons for this lies in the special intimate and confidential nature of business transactions, as well as in the practice of mutual services, which to some extent carries over to sexual relations. At the same time, sexual harassment is often presented as a particularly gentle, caring and refined form of attitude towards a woman, as a form of justified courtship, introducing elements of feminist ethics into traditional relations between the sexes. As defined by the US Security Commission equal opportunities employment, sexual harassment is unprovoked sexual claims, attempts to gain favor and other verbal and physical actions of a sexual nature directed at an employee, which have an impact on his (her) activities and further career. Research shows that more often than not, sexual harassment is directed from a boss to a subordinate.

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

Higher vocational education

Samara State University

Sociological faculty

Department of Theory and Technology

Social work.
Abstract.

Ethical dilemmas and controversies in social work
Samara 2010
CONTENT
Introduction p. 3

1. The main ethical dilemmas and contradictions of social work p. 4

2. Ethical principles professional activity Social Worker as Ways to Solve Social Work Dilemmas p. nine

Conclusion p. 16

References p. eighteen

Appendix c. 19
Introduction

Like any enough new specialty, social work initially arises in the form of scattered spontaneous practical experience, in the form of separate scientific ideas and academic disciplines. At the same time, the inevitable is a temporary state of unclearness of the subject and an insufficient certainty of the method, which creates specific difficulties for the formation and training of personnel.

No one is able to give advice suitable for each specialist and thereby solve his problems. One thing remains: to convince a person that he himself needs to establish a balance between emotional reactions and rational ways of getting out of this situation.

The study and consideration of all these aspects of the professional culture of a social worker reveals not only the qualities and capabilities of the teacher, his age and personal characteristics, but also the professionally significant personal potential, the formation of which occurs on the basis of his overall development and depends on it. The higher the level of a person's development, the richer his personal labor potential, hence the higher the quality of professional activity, and vice versa.

A significant part of the professional culture of a social worker is its ethical component, i.e. professional ethics of a social worker.

Ethical knowledge is an essential part of the professional activity of a social worker. His ability to act in accordance with ethical standards significantly increases the practical value and quality of his professional activities. Ethical knowledge helps to resolve complex ethical dilemmas and contradictions that a social worker faces in the course of his work.

The aim of the work is to characterize the problem of ethical dilemmas and contradictions in social work.
1. The main ethical dilemmas and controversies of social work

In practice, social workers face a variety of ethical problems and dilemmas as a result of their obligations towards clients, colleagues, their own profession, and society as a whole. These problems are often vague, vague and give rise to uncertainty, a tendency to ignore and avoid them. It is easy to verbally, abstractly adhere to the majestic values set forth in monographs and textbooks, and thus exercise your responsibility. But it is not only difficult, but sometimes dangerous to apply for leadership in daily work such, for example, abstract values as self-determination or the sovereignty of the client's personality, if they cause a false sense of complacency in the social worker, while the client is not able to adequately implement them. ...

Most of the hardships for the social worker stem from the choice between two or more conflicting obligations. For example, many national codes of ethics and social work charters require social workers not to engage in activities that violate or diminish the civil or legal rights of clients. At the same time, they must comply with their obligations to the employing organization. “The situation is quite real when these two principles conflict with each other if the policy of the institution to which the rights are transferred leads to a violation civil rights clients, for example, due to financial interests or self-interest in the case of the "distribution" of humanitarian aid "1.

Areas of concern and ethical dilemmas are not always shared by different countries due to differences in culture and government. Each national association of social workers should encourage discussion in order to clarify the critical issues and problems specific to the country. Nevertheless, one can single out a group of ethical dilemmas that sooner or later arise in practical social work in any society and to overcome which, due to preventive responsibility, one should be prepared.

Independence and manipulation. For a social worker who considers human independence as one of the basic values, any management of his behavior looks like manipulation and, therefore, as a destruction of the very essence of humanism. Where it is possible to solve problems without manipulating the will of a person, the question of values does not arise. But if such a solution is not possible without even a minor impact or imposition of values, and the goal is tempting and real, the social worker is faced with an ethical dilemma.

For example, insisting that a person should not put up with circumstances, but strive to change them, that it is necessary to rationally use reliable knowledge and plan his future, a social worker cannot be sure that being will become more perfect thanks to his efforts. He cannot be sure that this situation will not worsen from his intervention.

When dealing with pessimistic people, social workers often use expressions such as “indifference and resistance of the client”, “help in the client's awareness of his situation and the need to overcome it,” “helping a person develop his resistance to difficulties,” etc. However, in the well-known sense, these expressions are only euphemisms of the desire to instill in the minds of people the values of the social worker himself and his belief in the success of changes, which, probably, should be considered as a form of manipulation.

In these and other similar situations, the question of the limits of a person's independence from the will of the social worker, the client's right to make a decision and the responsibility of the social worker to determine the framework within which he can grant this right to the client is unclear. Therefore, in social work, it is necessary to limit the possibilities of manipulating consciousness and behavior in order to orient the client to identify his own values and correlate his actions with them. When a client is focused on his own values, the potential for manipulation is reduced. To do this, it is necessary to develop the client's ability to make an informed and purposeful choice of values and be responsible for this choice.

“Paternalism and Self-Determination. One of the key values of social work - the well-being of clients - actualizes the problem of paternalism. The paternalistic paradigm presupposes a guardian model of the relationship between a social worker and a client, "leading" the latter, and allows interference in his desires or freedom for his own good. In the interests of the client, to protect him from himself, paternalism considers it possible to restrict the client's self-destructive actions, oblige him to accept services against his will or forcibly, recognizes the right of a social worker to withhold information or provide disinformation, etc. "

This practice is perceived ambiguously and raises controversy about the limits of permissibility of paternalism. On the one hand, it is considered possible to provide the client with the right to certain forms of self-destructive and risky behavior, on the other, social workers are responsible for protecting clients from themselves in the event of their inadequate perception of the world and actions. This ethical dilemma refers to the self-determination of clients and their ability to understand their situation and make the best decision.

V modern world the paternalistic model of social work is gradually - faster in the West, much slower in Russia - losing its positions. The principle of informed consent is being strengthened, transforming the client from a passive recipient of benefits and an object for manipulation into a partner. This means that the social worker and the client make a decision about assistance together and recognize that both parties are contributing something significant to the mutually acceptable and effective nature of the collaboration. Indeed, only the client knows the values that are acquired crucial in assessing the expected results of assistance. Most people are interested in making their own decisions that affect their lives. Human self-determination is one of the highest values, and social work should not be an exception.

The need to tell the truth. This dilemma is close to the previous one and consists in the fact that, on the one hand, there is no doubt legal right clients to receive reliable information about their condition and well-being, and it is believed that they should not be denied truthful information or provided disinformation. On the other hand, in some cases it seems ethically justified and even necessary to hide the truth from clients or "supply" them with disinformation ("saving lies") for their own benefit.

In the Western practice of social work, the first position prevails, in the Russian one - so far the second. In combination with a low legal culture, the emphasis on the possibility of deception, even if it is “salutary,” represents the erosion of moral values and professional ethics, as well as a real ground not only for violations of the law, but also for the criminalization of the social worker-client relationship.

Confidentiality and private nature of messages. All national codes of ethics and charters contain a provision that the social worker, respecting the personality and dignity of the client, must keep the information received from him strictly confidential. Information used in one case should not be used for other purposes without appropriate sanctions. While this is almost always true, in some cases social workers are forced to consider disclosure. confidential information, for example in the face of a threat from a client to a third party. Hence, it becomes necessary to inform the client about the boundaries of confidentiality in specific situation, on the purpose of obtaining information and its use and at the same time obtaining the consent of the client, for example, for printing, recording a conversation, the participation of a third party.

Large-scale computerization of all spheres of society, the ability to access information through electronic means also raise the issue of confidentiality.

“Although professional ethics provide for the possibility of disclosing confidential information, there is no agreement on exactly under what conditions this disclosure is permissible. It is believed that extraordinary circumstances may prompt this. In our opinion, the lack of clarity on this issue entails the need for a deeper discussion of the moral foundations of the problem. In addition, under certain circumstances, the dilemma under consideration can be qualified not only as value-ethical, but also as ethical-legal ”1.

Denunciation. Sometimes social workers are forced or deliberately to break the law or violate the rules of the institutions in which they work. In this case, they present a moral choice to their colleagues who have learned about these violations. On one side of the scale are the norms of professional ethics, on the other - professional loyalty and solidarity, a sense of friendship, reputation, and a threat to one's own position.

The burden and complexity of this choice makes social workers wary of identifying and publicizing wrongdoing in their profession. Therefore, those of them who received information and evidence of ethically or legally illegal actions of their colleagues are forced to carefully weigh their actions in view of their obligations in relation to the profession, clients, colleagues, organization, and their future.

Laws and client welfare. Legislation cannot provide for all diversity social life, therefore, sometimes the client's well-being comes into conflict with him. In some cases, following the letter of the law can harm the client, which presents social workers with difficult choices. Some of them consider any actions to protect the interests of the client permissible, even if they violate the law or other ethical standards; most social workers choose the law. In Russia, moral decisions are often given priority. As with other dilemmas, there are no easy answers.

“Personal and professional values. Another group of ethical dilemmas is based on the conflict between the personal and professional values of the social worker. He may disagree with the client for political, religious, moral and other reasons, but is obliged to fulfill his professional duty. The opinions of social workers about which values to give priority do not always coincide ”1. In each case, the social worker must balance the obligations to the client, profession, organization, colleagues, third parties, and himself. Here it is also necessary to understand the nature of the impact of subjective values on the awareness of the problems of another, in particular the client.
2. Ethical principles of the professional activity of a social worker as ways of solving the dilemmas of social work

Acceptance of a person as he is.

A client or an object of social work can be an individual or a group of people (for example, a children's team, a family) who have individual and group characteristics. Each client has a legal and moral right to be accepted and listened to by any social educator, regardless of departmental affiliation or position. At the same time, the social worker ensures his personal safety, while observing the principle of “do no harm”. When solving problems of a client's life situation, a social educator is guided by the reasonable nature of his requirements, given that the measure is the degree of harmonization of the client's relationship to society in their interaction. The main task in almost any situation is to help the client to motivate him to take independent actions to resolve his problems.

Neither negative personal qualities, physical disabilities, mental disabilities, nor religion, sexual orientation or race, nor social maladjustment, nor prejudice and prejudice - nothing can serve as a reason for refusing a person to help a social teacher, as a reason for any form of discrimination against a client. All the specific features of the client should be taken into account when deciding to provide him with social assistance.

Respect for the client's right to make an independent decision at any stage of joint action

Respect for the client's right to make a decision is a manifestation of respect and observance of his rights. A person who turns to a social teacher and social worker for help has the same rights as all other people. Social worker cannot provide assistance to a person (or a group of persons) without his consent with their plan of action. The client has the right to refuse the proposed course of action, to continue the work already started, if his opinion or situation has changed for any reason. He has the right to change his views, positions, beliefs.

“Regardless of the degree of rationality (irrationality) of the client's actions, the social worker cannot force him (morally or materially, psychologically or physically) to follow their professional logic. Only arguments and arguments, the logic of persuasion, ethical values of the state and society, norms current legislation, the possibilities of the system of social protection of the population and others social institutions, professional experience a social worker is an instrument of his influence on the client ”1.

The client has the right to refuse to interact at any stage of collaboration with confidence in maintaining the confidentiality of information about him.

Confidentiality of cooperation of a social worker with a client

Confidential (confidential, not subject to disclosure) information is everything that concerns the living conditions of the client, his personal qualities and problems, as well as everything else that will be determined by the client in interaction with the social teacher. He must guarantee him this confidentiality and take all measures to ensure it.

The social worker must inform the client that this or that information will have to be transferred to other employees of this social institution (social service), their management in order to make an optimal decision at a higher administrative level on the social assistance requested by the client. He is also obliged to inform the client about the need to involve third-party organizations, close persons of the client, his neighbors, representatives public organizations and legal entities and give them the information they need. In any case, such information can be transferred only with the permission of the client and only to those who are involved in solving his problems.

If the client agrees to transfer part of the agreed information to other persons or organizations, the social educator must warn them about the confidentiality conditions; confidentiality has no statute of limitations.

Violation of confidentiality is possible only in conditions of immediate danger for the client: for his life, health, material well-being, mental state. In this case, the violation of confidentiality must be accompanied by a preliminary notification of the client about the compelling conditions, about the obligations and responsibilities social educator.

Completeness of informing a person about actions taken in his interests

Compliance with the principle of protecting the rights of the client stipulates the duty of the social worker to inform the person who turned to him for social assistance about all the actions he takes to solve his problems.

The social worker is responsible for the completeness, quality and timeliness of providing the client with all the information he needs.

Informing the client is necessary in order to create favorable conditions for enhancing his personal potential.

In addition, the lack of information can negatively affect the quality of the decision made by the client, since he, not knowing all the circumstances and facts, can make an erroneous decision that will lead to a result that is opposite to the goal of social work and his personal interests. "Considering that in social and pedagogical work, issues related to the fate of a person are resolved, with the harmonization of his relations with society, with the improvement of his living conditions, the client has every right to know about all the actions that are supposed to be taken with his participation or without his participation." 1.

Considering that the interaction of a person (client), a specialist (social teacher) and society (society) is based on partnerships, each of them, including the client, must have the status of a full-fledged subject of this interaction, and, therefore, the right to initiative, respect for dignity and completeness of information.

“Social workers should prevent the emergence of situations of conflict of interest that can affect their professional tact, the success of solving the social problems of the person who asked for help” 2.

If such a conflict arises, they should declare it and take the necessary action, ensuring that it does not harm the professional relationship. Social workers should help to an individual, families, groups and communities to find ways to mutually acceptable solutions to emerging problems or to reconcile and balance conflicting or competing needs and interests.

Responsibility of a social teacher for the results of his activities

The social worker, dealing with the solution of specific problems of the client, bears personal responsibility for the results of his activities, for the quality and efficiency, timeliness and efficiency of social assistance and for its consequences.

The social worker is also responsible to society for the results of his activities. It is designed not only to harmonize the relationship of his client and his social environment, but also to restore, improve the social status of this person, which has decreased due to a number of objective or subjective reasons, to help restore his active personal and social life.

“The social worker is responsible for himself and his family. His constant participation in solving many problems of his clients, living with them their troubles, needs, tragedies, misfortunes objectively leads to professional "burnout", a decrease in the threshold of emotional sensitivity, a weakening of empathy, and the development of cynicism. Every social worker is obliged to be able to protect himself both in his personal interests and in the interests of his clients ”1.

Social workers are also responsible to their profession, increasing its prestige, social status in society, importance in interpersonal and intergroup communication in different types and types of society, ensuring its attractiveness for young people and the integration of young professionals in the profession of a social worker.

At the same time, it is important to take into account that in the conditions of interaction between society, the client and the social worker, all responsibility for the results of such interaction cannot be assigned only to the employee. social sphere... It is inappropriate to expect only from the social teacher and personal responsibility for the long-term results of joint actions with the client and for their consequences: when the problem is solved, the connection with the client may be lost; the client has the right to independently use the results of joint activities with a social worker to solve his urgent problems; the result depends on the nature of these problems and the moral character of the client himself and may be different.

Decency of a social worker in interaction with a client

The decency of a social worker is a very important principle in connection with the need to ensure a balance of interests, both his personal and the interests of the client and his social environment; professional community of social workers and social educators, society as a whole. The interests of some cannot prevail over the interests of others, they cannot be realized to the detriment of someone.

"The personal decency of a social worker is to ensure a reasonable balance, to harmonize the interests of all interested parties, the ability to prevent the establishment of priority of one over the other, including the priority of society over the interests of the client and vice versa, their personal interests over the interests of the client or society" 1.

An important condition for social and pedagogical activity is the disinterestedness of a social teacher. Social workers do whatever they think is necessary for their client to resolve the problem.

Social workers, being representatives of state social institutions, public non-governmental organizations and associations, act in the interests of the person who turned to them for help, often doing much more for him than prescribed by the job description.

The social worker should not succumb to the influences and pressures encountered on the way of their professional activity; it is their duty to carry out their professional duties impartially.

Goodwill is present at all stages of the interaction of a social teacher with a client. It is she who provides the right tone when working with the person who asked for help, calls him to frankness and interaction. Wishing well to the person who asked for help, the social educator provides the necessary guidance for his actions, tactfully point out mistakes and shortcomings, help in solving difficult problems, or completely take care of the client.

The personal decency of a social worker guarantees the quality and efficiency of his professional activities and ensures that he meets the requirements of the international and national Codes of Ethics for a social worker and a social educator.

An ethical dilemma is a situation of moral choice, when the realization of one moral value destroys another, no less important. If we consider the issue of ethical dilemmas in the framework of professional activities, then it is currently believed that this problem can be removed through the creation of professional codes of ethics. In general, this kind of ethics often provides a useful influence on the resolution of ethical problems arising in the process of professional activity, so in a situation of ethical choice, the employee has guidance on how to act in a given situation. However, the situation is not excluded when the postulates set forth in professional ethics, may contradict some principles of universal ethics (generally accepted for all people, regardless of professional affiliation) and then the situation for a particular person may seem insoluble. Also, the situation can be complicated by an internal moral conflict of the individual, because each person has a set of moral criteria that are valuable to him, but can contradict both generally accepted norms and the norms of professional ethics.

Ethical dilemmas arise in front of us every day, but, as a rule, we solve them for ourselves according to the principle of "least evil", and of course not all of them develop into a conflict situation or remain an internal conflict of a particular person.

As a rule, when a situation grows to a "conflict" one, it is very difficult to isolate its ethical component. This is the most difficult challenge in ethical practice.

When assessing a conflict from an ethical point of view, first of all, it is necessary to identify all parties - participants and analyze the situation over time. Having determined the stages of the development of the conflict, it is necessary to identify the goals that guided the parties to the conflict. Often, the parties to the conflict do not even always themselves realize their true goals, not realizing what was guiding them in a given situation. It appears that the prospective ethics officer must have sufficient psychological experience work with people in order to isolate the deep motives of a particular person. In addition, it seems that the assessment situations of the parties to the conflict can also carry an element of ethical choice, which is difficult for an assessor - an ethics commissioner or an ethical commission. I am sure that no professional code of ethics can cover the variety of situations that the subjects of ethical practice will have to resolve and, most likely, they will have to resort to the norms of universal ethics, and when making decisions, they will face a new ethical dilemma.

For example, a social worker - a single mother - suddenly had a child, the boss was not there, and she had to pick him up from kindergarten, her partner agreed to "cover up" the absence of a colleague and her "skimping" official duties... The returned boss discovers the absence of the employee at the workplace, he must take administrative measures, but this will lead to the withdrawal of the bonus from the employee, and she is a single mother, and the situation is ambiguous (her son is ill). The boss cannot leave unauthorized absence from the workplace unpunished and decides to limit himself to an oral warning. "Well-wishers" brought the situation to the attention of the higher management, how to evaluate it? In general, an attempt to give an unambiguous assessment of any situation is utopian, because rarely a person's actions can be assessed as truly “good” or truly “bad”. An ethical dilemma is not a problem and cannot be completely resolved; in real conditions, the most likely approach is to find some kind of "compromise" when, as they say, "the sheep are safe and the wolves are full," although from an ethical point of view this is also debatable.

Another example. A client of a social worker who is seriously and terminally ill, who endures terrible suffering every day, wants to die. He makes an agreement on the phone with his relative that he will bring him a potent medicine that will help the patient to die painlessly. A social worker overheard this conversation. What should he do in such a situation? Prevent medication transfer from taking place? Report to the competent authorities about your client's relative? Pretend you haven't heard anything? Try to convince the client of the wrong choice?

Evaluating the ethics of employees' actions seems to be an ambiguous process that requires long-term practice. In addition to many professional requirements (knowledge of personality psychology, social psychology, conflictology, the foundations of ethics, etc.), the subjects of ethical practice must constantly exercise internal self-control regarding the ethics of their behavior and judgments. The line of "ethical" is very thin and there will always be someone who will say: Who are the judges?
Conclusion

The considered ethical problems of social work require the development of ways to resolve them. In theoretical terms, in the history of philosophy, ethics and religion for many hundreds of years, many theories and ideas concerning moral contradictions have been proposed. Many of them can be the basis for solutions to ethical problems in social work, although the latter have their own characteristics due to the specifics not only of the profession and time, but also of each country to which this applies.

To a certain extent, the situation is facilitated by the fact that similar problems are being developed in other areas of human activity - science, technology, medicine, pedagogy, psychology, etc. At the junction of biomedicine and ethics, bioethics even emerged as a research area of an interdisciplinary nature. The solutions worked out here can be useful for social work.

Codes of ethics, in which social workers seek to find answers, are not always able to satisfy their needs, since, firstly, they are drawn up in general terms and with a rather high degree of abstraction, and secondly, they contain principles that in some cases are contradictory and themselves. present an ethical dilemma.

In any case, the considered problems confirm that in a dynamic world of permanent reassessment of values and the "struggle of the gods", the continuation of traditions and the birth of a new picture of the world, not a single human "system" of thinking and values, including religious and based on secular humanistic principles, can claim the embodiment of complete truth, true "holiness" and perfection.

This also applies to social work in all its meaningful and national forms, its spiritual and moral paradigms and guidelines.The main mission of social work is to help a person to be a human being, to gain a sense of solidarity with other people and share responsibility for their fate. This is the ethics of solidarity, overcoming alienation and separation of people in this world.
Bibliography

Code of ethics of a social teacher and social worker // Social work. 2006. No. 1.

Lipsky I. The Code of Ethics is approved. Ethical code of a social teacher and social worker // Social work. 2003. No. 2.

Mitroshenkov O.A. Social work. M., 2006.

Rimer F.G. Values and Ethics // Encyclopedia of Social Work: In 3 volumes. M., 1993-1994. T. 3.

Social worker: problems of training and professional development. Samara, 2001.

Social moral principles form personal principles, most intensively in the process of socialization of a person, but they continue to influence throughout his life. At the same time, the change in social moral principles, in turn, occurs under the influence of personal principles. So with the development of capitalism in our country, the idea of the moral character of the leader has changed quite dramatically. The image of an honest, sympathetic, hero-leader of production was replaced by a businessman with good connections and capital, who is able to conduct double-entry bookkeeping, skillfully use, perhaps, illegal, but effective methods in the process of managing the company and fighting competitors. With this arrangement of things, the image of a modern businessman does not arouse disgust among the public, but is accepted as one of the aspects of our everyday life, leads to a reassessment of values, and, as a consequence, to a change in the general understanding of morality.

A strong factor influencing the transformation of moral principles is also a change in worldview, which can occur both under the influence of personal experiences and events of a national or world level. Indeed, during the Great Patriotic War such concepts as murder and theft had a completely different perception from the point of view of morality, if it was a question of self-defense and the need to at least somehow feed themselves. Another example is the chaos of the 90s of the last century, when banditry flourished in the country based on the loss of ideology and fear of the unknown.

The change in moral principles over time is an actual attribute of our modernity. But at the same time, our society is not doomed to demoralization, despite the strong influence of Western ideology, society still retains its moral character. The immediate guarantee of the preservation of morality in modern society is conscience - a sense of moral responsibility for one's behavior in front of the surrounding people and society.

The formation of morality and its development is a long process and still very far from its culmination. We can say that morality in the proper sense of this concept is still in the process of formation. Its triumph as a social phenomenon, when its historical ties with religion will be forgotten, when it becomes a ubiquitous and defining law of interhuman relations, is yet to come. And there is nothing discouraging about this. Moreover, this speaks of the extraordinary complexity and duration of the formation of the human being in person, the grandeur and immeasurable depth of the historical process.

The moral values of the modern society differ markedly from the traditional ones. For example, out of 10 biblical commandments, five do not work: three dedicated to God (because they conflict with the freedom of conscience), about the Sabbath (contradicting the freedom to control your time), and “do not commit adultery” (contradicting the freedom of personal life) ... Conversely, some of the necessary commandments in religion are missing. A similar picture is not only with the Bible, but also with the attitudes of other religions.

Modern society has its own essential values, which in traditional societies were far from in the first place (and were even considered negative):

- "do not be lazy, be energetic, always strive for more";
- "self-develop, learn, become smarter - thereby you contribute to the progress of mankind";
- "achieve personal success, achieve wealth, live in abundance - thereby you contribute to the prosperity and development of society";
- "Do not cause inconvenience to others, do not meddle in someone else's life, respect the personality of another and private property."

The main emphasis is on self-development, which leads, on the one hand, to the achievement of personal goals (for example, career growth), and on the other hand - to the "non-consumer" attitude towards other people. Of course, all the classic moral imperatives are preserved: “don't kill”, “don't steal”, “don't lie”, “sympathize and help other people”. And these basic settings will no longer be violated in the name of God, which is what most religions sin (especially in relation to "other faiths"). Moreover, the most problematic commandment - “do not lie” - will be strengthened to the greatest extent, which will radically increase the level of trust in society, and hence the effectiveness of public mechanisms, including the elimination of corruption. After all, a person who constantly develops himself is always confident in his own strength and there is no need for him to lie. Lying is not beneficial to him - it can undermine his reputation as a professional. Moreover, a lie is not needed, because many things cease to be "shameful" and they do not need to be hidden. In addition, the attitude towards self-development means that a person sees his main resource within himself and there is no need for him to exploit others.

If we talk about the priority of values, then the main thing for Modern society is human freedom and condemnation of violence and intolerance. Unlike religion, where it is possible to justify violence in the name of God, modern morality rejects any violence and intolerance (although it can use state violence in response to violence).

From the point of view of Modern morality, traditional society is simply overflowing with immorality and lack of spirituality, including severe violence towards women and children (when they refuse to obey), towards all dissidents and "violators of traditions" (often ridiculous), a high degree of intolerance towards non-believers etc. An important moral imperative of modern society is respect for law and law, because only the law can protect human freedom, ensure the equality and security of people. And, on the contrary, the desire to subjugate another, to humiliate someone's dignity are the most shameful things. A society where all of these values are at work in full would be perhaps the most efficient, complex, fastest growing and richest in history. It would also be the happiest, because would provide a person with maximum opportunities for self-realization. It should be noted that all of the above is not an invented, artificial construction. This is just a description of what millions of people are already following - Modern people, who are becoming more and more. This is the moral of a person who has studied hard, who through his own efforts has become a professional, who values his freedom and is tolerant of other people.

Modern morality is not about indulging selfishness and "base instincts." Modern morality makes more demands on man than ever before in human history. Traditional morality gave a person clear rules for life, but did not demand anything more from him. The life of a person in a traditional society was regulated, it was enough just to live according to the order established for centuries. It didn’t require mental effort, it was simple and primitive.

Modern morality requires a person to develop and achieve success by their own efforts. But she does not say how to do this, only stimulating a person to a constant search, to overcome himself and to exert his strength. Instead, modern morality gives a person the feeling that he is not a cog in a meaningless machine, invented for some unknown reason, but the creator of the future and one of the builders of himself and this whole world. In addition, self-development, increased professionalism leads to the acquisition of material wealth, provides prosperity and prosperity already "in this life."

Without a doubt, modern morality destroys many senseless rules and prohibitions (for example, in the field of sex) and in this sense makes life easier and more enjoyable. But at the same time, modern morality rigidly imposes on a person the requirement to be just a person, and not to be led by his own animal instincts or herd feelings. This morality requires manifestations of reason, and not primitive emotions like aggression, revenge, the desire to subjugate other people or submit to an authority that "will arrange and decide everything for us." And it is far from easy to become tolerant, to overcome personal and social complexes in oneself.

But the main thing is that Modern morality focuses not on “pleasing oneself beloved” and not on selfless (more precisely, self-deprecating) achievement of “great goals”, but on self-improvement and perfection of everything that surrounds Modern man.

It might be helpful to read: