1. Professional’s Obligations to Clients Some of the obligations we have as professional’s towards our clients are to practice with 1. Honesty 2. Competence 3. Candor 4. Diligence 5. Loyalty 6. Fairness 7. Confidentiality and 8. Non-Maleficence. Honesty to our clients shows that we are obligated to tell them the truth. We must conduct ourselves to our clients in an honest manner. This will help to establish trust. Competence in the relationship shows that we are able and have the experience and knowledge to complete our job. A person should always be increasing their knowledge base so that they become more competent. However, they should also be able to admit their limitations so they do not take on a job for which they are unable to complete. Candor is telling a person a fact in a straight forward, honest manner. It is a sincere expression that is relayed from the professional to the client. Diligence to the client is doing the best job in the best way for all that is involved while not putting others above or below said customer (equality.) Loyalty to a client lets them know that you will do what is best for them. You are keeping their best interests in mind. Fairness to a client entails treating all of them equally. This means not letting pressure, money or other distractions influence how you get your job done. Confidentiality goes a long way in maintaining trust. It is making sure that information you have on all clients and work are secured so no others have access to them. It also encompasses not talking to others outside of the case about details. The +1 obligation is non-maleficence. This shows that you will do no harm to others. Whether it be physically or mentally. I think that one of the hardest obligations to keep would be the confidentiality. For the appraisal business, you need to consult, almost on a daily basis, with other professionals. Trying to get information from them with a vague description is hard. In smaller, more rural areas, they can guess who and what you are working with without physically giving them information. I had the uncomfortable situation of inspecting a commercial business while customers were in the same building. Many of the customers knew me and tried to ask me questions. I felt rude, but I told them I’d catch them later and went on with my work. To me this was a confidentiality situation. They did not need to know what I was doing there and why. Also, if you leave information sitting out it can be a breach of confidentiality. I always keep my paperwork in my briefcase or in file. Even my children are not allowed to go near them or look over my shoulder as I work. I believe that candor can also be a hard one to provide. Sometimes, people like to sugarcoat the truth so they don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. If you are truly being candid, you do not hold back from the client. Even if you feel it will hurt their feelings. In the appraisal business, we are not allowed to tell a person whether we feel their loan or financing will go through. However, a good example would be the medical profession. They must tell the client, with candor, what to expect. This can sometimes be bad news and is hard for any person to deliver. The third obligation that I feel would be the hardest to provide is competence. Sometimes, it is hard for a person to admit that they are not competent in something. A good example would be with accepting assignments for appraisal. If you have lived in the city all your life and never stepped foot on a farm or had any education about agriculture, you would not be competent to appraise a farm. If you had background in agriculture and worked with farmers in the past, so knew about crops, soil and prices, you would be considered competent to do a farm appraisal. But say you have very little experience, but need work or money and think it will be good experience. This does not make you competent. In this situation, you should work under another with the experience instead of taking it on by oneself.
2. Kant and Respect for Others The first form of Kant’s categorical imperative is “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law (pg 50.)” We should not make our decisions based on what would benefit us or just out of friendship. Our actions should be based on what is for the good of everyone as long as no one is harmed in or by the outcome.
The second form of Kant’s categorical imperative is “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that or another, always as an end and never as a means only (pg 51.)” This form is like the first, but with more involved. All people should be treated the same. You shouldn’t use people to further yourself or to further anyone else’s cause or taken for granted.
For a principle to be universal, you must look at how it would morally benefit everyone as a whole. For a principle to be reversible, you must be ok with the fact that if it were applied to yourself, you would still be willing to uphold it.
Do I agree with Kant’s idea that we should act on the basis of right intention? Yes, I believe that a person should always act on the basis of right intention. I personally will trust a person more if I know that they are doing something because it is right. If their actions are based on right intentions, they will earn the respect of people more readily. Let’s say that a man left his wallet at the café. The first person who sees the wallet decides she can give it back to the man and suggest a reward for the return to make it worth her time. The second person is a close cousin and decides he will return it because that’s his favorite relative. Normally he would figure it was none of his business. The third person is from out of town and would rather eat his meal before it is cold, but knows that it probably has money, cards and a driver’s license that are important. The first person is not acting under the right intention because she anticipates a reward. The second person is only giving it back because it is a relative. The third is the only one with the right intentions. He is not basing his decision on anything but what he perceives as the right action.
3. Aristotle and Virtuous Living
Aristotle meant that a person should balance what is considered a good virtue with care. Kind of like the saying that too much of a good thing is bad. It also could be looked at as the man who gave the coat off his back in 20 degree weather to a lady that had a down coat on and exclaimed that it was too cold for her bones outside. In this instance, the thought was kind, but the lady was actually warm and now the man will come down with pneumonia. He could have offered her a wind break or offered to take her to a warm building. Instead, he sacrificed his health and well-being to do what he thought was right. Now the flip side of this is he could have not offered any help at all. One example of an Aristotelian virtue would be helping a homeless couple off the street. It will be a cold night and they need a place to stay for the night. Let’s call the lady helping Jane. On one extreme, Jane could avoid the person and not offer any assistance because she doesn’t want to waste her money or time. This could be considered stinginess. On the other extreme, Jane could offer all the money in her wallet, $200, which she was planning on buying groceries with for her family of five for the next two weeks. This could be considered an extravagance. A good mean between the two would be calling a local minister who takes in people for free like the one Jane is helping. Jane could also offer the person $50 to help without putting her family out of food for two weeks. This would be considered generosity. Another example could be a man with a blown tire. It is on a well-traveled highway in 105 degree heat and he doesn’t have a jack. The man destined to help is named Ben. On one extreme, Ben could have driven by because he thought the tattoos on the man’s arm and his Mohawk made him look suspicious. This could be considered cowardice as his actions would be based completely on outward appearances. On the other hand, Ben could stop to help, not paying attention to whether the man’s hair is armed and dangerous. This could be considered recklessness as he is putting his life on the line in order to help in a non-life threatening situation. What Ben could do is offer to call a tire shop that can come pick the vehicle up at no cost without exiting his vehicle. If he determines the situation is safe, he can help to change the tire with his jack while the tire shop is headed to them. This would be considered courage. And the man’s hair ended up not being armed, nor were his two toddler’s strapped into the back seat. The last example will be about a little girl that has lost her library book at home. Say the parents do not care that the she will be unable to check out more books until the lost one is found or paid for in full. This would be an example of apathy. They could blow up at the child and blame her for losing the book and possibly costing them money. This upsets her enough that she can’t think about where she might have misplaced the book. This is considered short-tempered on the parent’s part. If they were to use the virtue of gentleness, they could remind the child that she had been in the office reading the night before. Disaster diverted.