Each of the options that present themselves to Elizabeth in this situation has an ethical value if assessed using different perspectives. Choosing to proceed with counseling sessions without the parents’ consent can be validated as ethical under the consequential view. This will have a likely positive outcome, as it will eliminate Trevor’s misconduct. In addition to this, it protects him from abuse by his parents who would more likely than not exact their own means of punishment on learning about Trevor’s behavior. The fact that prior evidence indicates a sustained trend of such response from Trevor’s parents gives the ethical value of this option much substance. On the other hand, this option cannot be justified under the non-consequential view of professional ethics. This is because the very act in itself undermines the rights of Trevor’s parents to choose a suitable method of discipline for their child.
There are non-consequential ethics with the second approach to inform Trevor’s parents about the stealing incident and counseling sessions. It is in order that Trevor’s parents acquire information to enable them to be involved in their child’s future. However on a consequential viewpoint, exposing Trevor to such an abusive environment may even do more harm than good to his character. All these outcomes of his parents’ violent reactions will have far-reaching negative implications. The ethical value of following school policy in regards to this matter is minimal if one takes a consequential standpoint.
The non-consequential theory evaluates the ethical nature of an action based on its value (Freakly & Burgh, 2000). The assessment of the act is on terms of what it directly implies. Certain kinds of acts are immediately dismissed as unethical and others as ethical. There is a static and clear classification in this case since there are some merits in taking the ...Show more