Terzet-Digitaal Congres-15-dhr. dr. R. van Es

TERZET 25 JAAR- DIGITAAL CONGRES 2018 10 Principles Arguments in favor Yes, condoning their conduct is apt, because: +1 The employer has the right to employ this employee and to fire him if he has good reasons for doing so. +2 It is counselors’ duty to focus on their clients, to respect them and to inform them what is going to happen next. +3 Both employer and employee have freedom of religion and belief. Arguments against No, condoning their conduct is not apt, because: -1 Counselors should make their decisions rationally and fairly and should be able to expect the same from employer and employee. That expectation has not been met. -2 The freedom of speech counselors enjoy as Dutch citizens also applies in the context of their job. -3 Certified Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors base themselves on scientifically informed professional ethics, not on religiously-informed ethics. Consequences Arguments in favor Yes, condoning their conduct is apt, because: +1 It is generally the quickest way to limit the damage and to get the rehabilitation effort back on track (rule utilitarianism). +2 In this situation, a white lie suits the employer and the local community (act utilitarianism). Arguments against No, condoning their conduct is not apt, because: -1 As a rule, Dutch society does not pay for ethical disputes between employer and employee (rule utilitarianism). -2 The employer’s lie is not in the client’s best interest, or at best only ostensibly (act utilitarianism). -3 Condoning such a lie is not in the best interest of a vocational rehabilitation counselor, regardless of whether this is seen in terms of professional conduct, expediency or results (act utilitarianism). Virtues Arguments in favor Yes, condoning their conduct is apt, because: +1 The employer is concerned with his own (and to some extent his employee’s) acceptance in the local community (virtue of care). +2 In having an affair, the employee tried to compensate for his misfortune (virtue of justice). +3 Professional counselors should develop the skills of self-control, sticking with the facts and moving on (virtue of personal development). Arguments against No, condoning their conduct is not apt, because: -1 It would be unfair for Dutch society to have to pay for the extra costs resulting from this unproductive situation (virtue of justice). -2 Vocational rehabilitation counselors cannot condone lies meant to avoid upsetting the status quo in the local community (virtue of personal development). -3 The employer must know that the employee is likely to become more isolated and/or stigmatized if he is fired (virtue of care). -4 Vocational rehabilitation counselors should act professionally and appropriately towards their peers; their actions should reflect respect for their own profession (One of the seven rules of the Code of Conduct). Short observation Because we have found 8 arguments in favor and 10 against, we cannot draw a simple, quantitative conclusion. We need to assign weight to each argument and therefore, to take into account the context, the people involved and, above all, the personal attributes of the vocational rehabilitation counselor in question. What does this counselor value most and why? By taking stock of the arguments in this way, we can define the ethical issue more precisely. Formulating Ethical Issue #2 Is it ethically apt, in my role as a vocational rehabilitation counselor, to condone the lies of this employer, in light of: a. my duty to focus primarily on my client, b. the employer’s stated aim of telling a white lie to maintain the status quo in the local community? versus a. my duty to make decisions based on fairness, b. the virtue of