The Nature of Ethics and the Accounting Profession
Ethics, morality and theory
Ethics is systematic reflection on what one ought to do; morality is the prevailing standards of a group. Expect questions at three levels: descriptive (how people actually behave), normative (how they should behave) and meta-ethics (the meaning of moral language). The major normative families are consequentialist - egoism and utilitarianism, which judge an act by its outcomes - and non-consequentialist - Kantian duty, rights and justice theories, which judge an act by principles independent of outcomes. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the agent, which makes it the natural lens for professional courage and integrity. Two traps recur: labelling a cost–benefit justification "deontological" when it is plainly utilitarian, and treating ethical relativism as a defence when a universal professional code applies.
Why accounting is a profession
Professional ethics builds on personal ethics through a social contract: society grants the profession a monopoly, self-regulation and status in exchange for service to the public interest rather than mere self-interest. That contract explains why a code, entry requirements, continuing education and a disciplinary body exist; why independence must protect the appearance as well as the reality of objectivity; and why an expectations gap persists when the public expects more than the minimum. A key discrimination is professionalism versus commercialism - and the recognition that code compliance is a floor, not proof of ethical conduct. An act can be permitted by the rules and still fail an ethical test.
Worked example
A partner argues that a minor disclosure breach is acceptable because the fee earned exceeds any likely penalty. Identify the reasoning: this is an egoist or crude utilitarian calculus. Re-test it deontologically - does the non-disclosure violate the duty owed to users and the profession's promise of integrity? - and through virtue ethics - what would a person of integrity do? Naming the theory first prevents the common error of applying outcomes to a duty question.
Rule of thumb: name the theory, then apply it to the facts; never mix the two.