Ethical reasoning and privileged information: Resolving moral conflict
Rule 301 in the Code of Professional Conduct — Confidential Client Information — has traditionally been strictly interpreted. In some instances this has placed CPAs in a situation where their own personal moral standards are in conflict with the Code of Professional Conduct. Moral reasoning is sugge...
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo di documento: | Elettronico Articolo |
| Lingua: | Inglese |
| Verificare la disponibilità: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Caricamento...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Pubblicazione: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
1994
|
| In: |
Journal of business ethics
Anno: 1994, Volume: 13, Fascicolo: 7, Pagine: 571-577 |
| Altre parole chiave: | B
Professional Conduct
B Ethical Reasoning B Moral Standard B Moral Reasoning B Economic Growth |
| Accesso online: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Riepilogo: | Rule 301 in the Code of Professional Conduct — Confidential Client Information — has traditionally been strictly interpreted. In some instances this has placed CPAs in a situation where their own personal moral standards are in conflict with the Code of Professional Conduct. Moral reasoning is suggested as a means of resolving this conflict. The process of moral reasoning is illustrated by contrasting Act Utilitarianism with Rule Utilitarianism. The actual resolution of a moral conflict may result in a CPA violating the Code of Professional Conduct as it is presently being interpreted. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-0697 |
| Comprende: | Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/BF00881302 |