4.3 Basics of Ethical Decision Making

Ethical Reasoning

Kitchener (1984) described two primary levels of ethical reasoning: The intuitive and critical-evaluative. Intuitive ethical reasoning involves decisions made at the moment with little to no critical analysis of the situation present. Intuitively, rather than exploring a given situation’s intricacies, context, and implications, we act based on our internalized ethical beliefs, personal disposition, and past experiences (Hare, 1981). This contrasts with the critical-evaluative level of ethical reasoning, which is utilized when we recognize that our intuitive moral judgment is insufficient to navigate the full scope of an ethical dilemma or when we must justify our ethical decision-making process (Kitchener, 1984).

Though critical-evaluative reasoning almost always demonstrates a greater level of analysis and attention to detail than intuitive reasoning, this is not to say that the latter plays no role in the counseling process. Developing a firm set of professional ethics that guide your intuitive reasoning will assist you in navigating some of the most emotionally demanding and ethically sensitive situations in counseling. For example, when a counselor assesses the risk of harm that an acutely suicidal client poses and determines whether or not they must break confidentiality to intervene, they are functioning at the intuitive level (Kitchener, 1984). Critical-evaluative reasoning may be applied later on as the counselor determines how to best proceed in light of decisions made; however, intuitive reasoning takes the lead in many crises.

Mandatory vs. Aspirational Ethics

The ethical codes, while invaluable resources for counselors, partly arose from a desire to protect the counseling profession from outside regulation—to demonstrate ethical self-sufficiency acceptable to the legal system rather than have regulation imposed upon them (Kitchener, 1984). Because of this, ethics codes such as the ACA (2014) and NAADAC (2021) represent the minimum standards to which counseling professionals should hold themselves rather than an ideal standard of practice for which counseling professionals should strive (Kitchener, 1984).

This disconnect highlights the difference between mandatory and aspirational ethics. Mandatory ethics are those actions directly dictated by the ethics codes, state laws, and regulatory boards. They represent the bare minimum for acceptable professional practice. Conversely, aspirational ethics represent ethical ideals that counselors should strive for beyond what is explicitly required. Though aspirational ethics may appear vague and unobtainable, they represent a standard of professional excellence that is a hallmark of the adept counselor.

Strategies for fostering aspirational ethical ideals might include:

• Review Lawrence Kohlberg’s work on stages of moral development. (i.e., Kohlberg, 1981) Consider what your primary motivations are for acting as you do in your practice. Is it to act in the best interests of clients? To avoid upsetting your place of employment? To avoid losing your license? Questions such as these may be helpful in determining whether you are operating at the level of mandatory or aspirational ethics.
• Explore contemporary and historical writings on ethical theory to develop your own personal philosophy of ethical practice. Writings on utilitarianism, existentialism, virtue ethics, and cultural-relativist philosophies are among the most common influencing clinical practice today. A cursory search on any major search engine will provide you with a list of some of the most popular works pertaining to these schools of philosophy..
• Explore, reference, and regularly review applied ethical works related to your field. Many scholarly journals are replete with contemporary ethical arguments, decision making guides, and case studies in applied ethics.