Social Philosophy Has Its Place in Social Work Practice

Social work as a discipline concentrates on theoretical and philosophical positions such as social justice, equality, and empowerment and these may be described as â€Å"philosophies of social work†. (Mackie, 2007) Historically during social works early years, moral concerns laid the foundations for the development of social work and the principal values of the profession, with particular emphasis on the significance of individual worth and dignity and service to humanity (Bisman, 2004).Many of our contemporary professional social work values and ethics have been constructed on the basis of Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies and although mutually they are considered as alternatives; both theories of are based on the assumption of the human being as a freely acting individual and indeed the philosophies share and hold the following approaches: †¢ The moral value of individual persons as autonomous rational beings; †¢ The universality of values and principles; †¢ The possibility of deducing moral ‘laws’ through rational reflection; †¢ The goal of individual liberty; freedom and emancipation and in the just ordering of a society.Human rights and social justice are clearly draw from Kantian and Utilitarian social philosophies and today are regarded as fundamental principals in the practice of social work (Banks 2001). In this paper the author will consider what social philosophy is and what effect if any it has on social work practice in 2011/2012. Political philosophy is influenced by social philosophy which in turn has an impact on the work has carried out by social workers ‘a rigid demarcation between political and social philosophy is impossible, and social philosophers, have influenced recent political philosophy.Social philosophy also deals with philosophical issues relating to institutions such as the family, religion and education. (Bunmin, 2004) Philosophers observed that the development of human behaviour wa s shaped by their social environment and mainly competitive in nature. From these philosophical origins collectivism grew into what we now know as collectivistic or socialist theories Kantian deontological ethics is a principle-based ethics wherein reason is central. Reasons motivate or predispose action. Gray, 2010)Kant’s ethical theory is grounded in the respect owed to individuals because they are rational moral agents. As social workers we work with service users to determine ‘what is the right thing to do’. Reasons are seen as more reliable when making moral judgements than emotions. This is not to say that Kant overlooks the importance of emotions, merely that they do not give the moral agent reason for action. Moral motives are attached to moral principles that lead people to do the right thing. (Gray, 2010) Autonomy and freedom are two absolute values for Kant.He believed that since people were rational beings, they had the ability to create universal law s and follow them. Furthermore, people were self-regulated by their own rules/laws because they were free to determine for themselves without laws imposed by others. Thus, the two notions of autonomy and freedom were identical in Kantian theory and interdependently connected (RHODES, 1986). In contrast with other theories on ethics, such as hedonism and utilitarianism, Kant believed that the purpose of ethics was not to teach people to reach for their personal happiness.On the contrary, ethical living for Kant was achieved at the cost of our urges and instincts. However it is necessary for individuals to be aware of their own personal needs and wills. Concerning social work ethics, the Kantian ethic of self-determination is one of the most important ethical commitments of the social work profession. Social workers are educated to intervene in human lives in a way that their actions preserve the right of all humans to determine for themselves.Self-determination is a fundamental value that entails us as social workers to respect the person and encourage the person to act for themselves(Parrott, 2008). Based on the dual focus of the Kantian theory in autonomy and freedom, the ethic of self-determination reflects a belief that everyone is a rational being who can decide on their own about what is good or bad. Therefore, a rational being can also understand the meaning of punishment when their actions infringe on the freedom and the autonomy of others (Clark, 2000).Furthermore, social workers are also committed to act with respect for one’s dignity, and this also demonstrates Kantian thinking and its absolute ethical obligation to see every person as an end and not as a means (Rhodes, 1986). However social workers need to be conscious, that self-determination in practice may be unclear and can be seen as ‘professional ideology—an inter-related set of values and ideas. The concept is derived from a number of ideas and values outside social work, but it appears to have little direct relevance to social work in practice. (SPICKER, 1990) Kant’s principle of respect for persons, which is very relevant for current social work is as an end in itself, and is tied to his view of individuals as rational beings with autonomy and the capacity to exercise choice (Gray, 2000). It is this condition of human agency that sets the object of moral requirement in place and places limitations on our actions. It is precisely this view of the individual that social work adopts. It leads to attention being paid to responsibility as the flipside of duty or obligation and to ethical decision making as a rational activity.The classic utilitarian’s believe that the ultimate good is something that most people actually desire, such as happiness or pleasure. Specifically, the doctrine of ethical hedonism and most of the modern utilitarian’s take pleasure as the ultimate goal to which we should aim. In its simplest form, utilitariani sm states that in any situation where there is a moral choice, which is likely to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people or the least harm to the world as a whole.Therefore, everyone ought to obey the laws that ensure the balance between the good for the individual and for the society as a whole (Rhodes, 1986; Clark, 2000) However focusing on a utilitarian outlook loses sight of the individual and their values and the riots that took place in England over the summer highlights this. The government â€Å"blamed a â€Å"broken society† for the wave of rioting and looting that spread through London http://www. guardian. co. k/social-care-network/2011/dec/09/live-reading-the-riots-social-careand there was a loud national outcry to deal robustly with the people that that took part in the riots and to give them sanctions like i. e. eviction from social housing, loss of state benefits, jail sentences However there were no considerations made for individual s and rhetoric like ‘social fight back’ gave such a combative position from the government. The summer riots emphasised the need for social workers to adhere to the GSCC codes of practice and to hold fast to ethics and values that under pin the discipline in the face of the moral panic.As emphasised by Theresa May’s and David Cameron recent speeches â€Å"The riots weren't about protests, unemployment, cuts,† she said. â€Å"The riots weren't about the future, about tomorrow. They were about today. They were about now. They were about instant gratification. Because all the riots really come down to was money. † â€Å"Parts of the state and its agencies had become demoralised from a moral collapse that has seen children without fathers and alienated, angry young people. The riots were not about race or poverty, but about behaviour and moral breakdown and people without proper boundaries. http://www. guardian. co. uk/social-care-network/2011/dec/09/l ive-reading-the-riots-social-care This highlights the challenge that social workers face in contemporary social work, as ‘agents of the state’ how do we work with these service users and empower them to make their own decisions when the current government belittles their frustrations and dismisses the inequalities that they experience on a day to day basis and ignore their feelings of powerlessness, voicelessness and under-representation.The government outlook does not take into consideration the evidence which suggests that rioters were generally poorer than the country at large. Analysis of more than a 1,000 court records suggests 59% of the England rioters come from 20% of the most deprived areas of the UK. Other analysis carried out by the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice on young riot defendants found that 64% came from the poorest fifth of areas and only 3% from the richest.This viewpoint makes it difficult for service users to not regard socia l workers with an air of suspicion ‘social workers have always been viewed by some people, on the far left of the political spectrum, as part of the social problem because they are agents of the state. This perspective sees social workers’ role as a sop for the poor and the marginalised by a brutal capitalist system. (Okitikpi, 2011) Although this may be difficult for some service users, ultimately as part of their code from The British Association of Social Workers (BASW, 2002): â€Å"social workers have a duty to†¦ ring to the attention of those in power and the general public, and where appropriate challenge ways in which the policies or activities of government, organisations or society create or contribute to structural disadvantages, hardship and suffering or militate against their relief (BASW, 2002, Section 3. 2. 2. 2. a. ). This a code that social workers adhere to as many social workers were initially motivated to join the profession by their desire to w ork for social justice and to have direct helping relationships. Cree, 2007)study reinforces the point that practitioners see their role as being that of an enabler and facilitator working alongside people. The entrenchment of user-involvement in all areas of the profession has also done much to reinforce practitioners’ perception of the centrality of the caring aspects of their role. A greater emphasis should be placed on social workers to practice feminist ethics ‘feminist ethics of care attempts to provide a more complete view of morality and ethics in social work of care’ (Gray, 2010).This eschews more abstract ethical perspectives and requires social workers to look at themselves and their capacities for empathy, courage and compassion. Virtue theory insists that it’s misguided to expect reason to be able to establish some infallible moral doctrine which is compulsory and often counter to human nature and emotions. Perhaps morality is not about confor ming to rules, but more about being trained to see problematic situations in a moral way. Morality may not be the rational control of the emotions but, more appropriately, the cultivation of desirable emotions (Phoca, 1999). Hugman, 2005)argues there is a growing interest in placing emotions at the heart of ethics. The helping relationship is one where the emotional content is often silent in the discussion of ethics. Feminists regard this approach as reductive in its presumptions about the overriding importance of duties and obligations, and rules and principles in moral behaviour. This implies that social workers keep clients’ confidence, for example, merely because it is their duty to do so. For feminists, there is much more to morality than this we keep confidentiality because we care about our clients. Gray, 2010) Social workers are bound by the GSCC codes of practice; there is an obligation to have regard for inequalities within society and to consider the many forms of discrimination service user’s encounter on a regular basis. Discrimination is explained by Thompson (2007); he describes discrimination with the use of his Personal, Cultural and Structural (PCS) model; the Personal refers to the psychological characteristics of discrimination and how such personal experiences impact upon our attitudes; Cultural makes reference to perceived societal norms – our shared socially