Ethical Principles v. Professional Rules: Will Someone Make Up Their Mind?

• In Event: SESSION 4A: Poster Session

Abstract

Abstract: Many accounting ethics instructors use the term “principles,” interchangeability with “values, morals, and laws” (rules) whenever they urge students to “do the right thing.” Unfortunately, equating principles with rules can lead to compromised ethical decision-making because principles are unchanging universal truths while rules are consensus-based beliefs that are subject to change and, therefore, are subject to moral relativism. In many jurisdictions, for example, the death penalty is legal. However, the legality of death penalty does not diminish the universal principle that murder is wrong.

This paper introduces the moral relativism problem of situational ethics where accountants can rationalize short-term bad behavior, i.e., paying bribes because everyone does, even given a high probability of negative long-term consequences. It next defines principles versus rules and discusses how this dichotomy ties into the Kohlberg trap where many accountants profess to believe in professional rules, but at the same time, work to circumvent them. Finally, it provides several case studies that demonstrate how using a principled approach to accounting ethics can overcome the moral relativism problem.

Key Words: Accounting Ethics, Principles, Rules, Moral Relativism

Author

• Dale Spradling, Stephen F. Austin St University