Freedom or 'Truth'

Hi everyone!

Firstly the name of the thread might be misleading (I was struggling with what to name it) if so I am sorry.

I am studying Social Work at university (Glutton for punishment, I know) and we were given a case study that has put me in a bit of an ethical dillema. Any opinions would be helpful.

Mr A is a 80 year old Black Caribbean man who needs a carer to visit him daily. He has stated that he does not want any black carer's to come to his home. (There was more but that is the gist)

Now. I personally would not judge or treat someone differently based on their skin colour, gender, sexuality etc etc however I also think that people have a basic human right to form their own opinions, regardless of what I think. Of course if Mr A used his opinion to be violent or harmful towards others then that would be different.
Practically it would be difficult to implement a care package that was tailored to that degree, and unethical to discriminate against someone based on skin colour... But if Mr A's wishes were not taken into consideration then would he be receiving proper care?

Freedom to have opinions is, for me, the most beautiful thing in the world. And I would never be able to truly grasp what has happened in someones life for them to form their opinion. But discrimination based on superficial characteristics and the inequality that stems from it is one of the most ugly things in the world.

Should we try to change peoples views on issues that seem 'true' or obvious to morality, or should people be free to form their own opinions?

Thanks for reading
Taijitu

I believe 'change peoples views' has a ring of coercion to it. [Persuade] might be a better word here. Persuade adds freedom to the choice to change rather then try to force them to unconditionally change.

So in a word or two, People should be free to form their own opinions.

Then if not, what is education for?

Thank for your reply rabbit.
Yeah, persuade is probably a better word = ]

And thanks for your reply theist... although I dont know what you were responding to.

Education is there to give young minds the tools to be able to take care of themselves and form their own views of the world. Or it should be. Is that what you meant?

Cheers
Taijitu

-- Updated January 24th, 2012, 10:18 pm to add the following --

Also did you mean primary education or secondary education... because sometimes the things you learn from parents and family contradicts with what is learnt from school with regards to morality...?

I didn't mean the formal education. I think education as teaching and learning is a never ending process. In this forum with exchange of ideas we learn from each other. We may give up our personal ideas and adopt others' ideas if they seem more reasonable. But here a personal choice is involved but even with education the person being educated can refuse to learn. Therefore a voluntary change of opinion and education are essentially the same thing: teaching and learning.

But what makes education moral? My theist beliefs aside, without a common foundation for morality there can be no universal answer to this question. But i still i think there can be a common ground or criterion on what makes education moral: if the education leads to common good (happiness, friendship, mutual coexistence, and justice) then it's moral to apply or enforce it with proper means. So freedom here is compromised upon. And generally there can no absolute freedom in a world where everything is inevitably influencing everything. So we compromise on freedom for a better collective end.

I choose freedom of the individual over received truth.

A social worker has to be paternalistic towards clients who are undereducated, old and slightly demented, suffering from minor ethnic identities, or simply not very well and unable to make sensible decisions.If a carer or helper with the desired skin colour is available then that one should be provided for the old man client.

If however the social worker is expected to educate the client and the client is in a fit state to learn, quite big if, then colour prejudice should perhaps be addressed.Colour prejudice matters only when it is institutionalised.

All service workers should for similar reasons gear their response to the personal needs of the client whenever funds allow, except when the perceived needs of the client are illegal, and even then sometimes the professional can turn a blind eye.

The needs of the client come first and the social worker should be in a position of such power that those needs can be served, even when the client's perceived needs seem a bit daft.
Taijitsu wrote:

Now. I personally would not judge or treat someone differently based on their skin colour, gender, sexuality etc etc however I also think that people have a basic human right to form their own opinions, regardless of what I think. Of course if Mr A used his opinion to be violent or harmful towards others then that would be different.
Practically it would be difficult to implement a care package that was tailored to that degree, and unethical to discriminate against someone based on skin colour... But if Mr A's wishes were not taken into consideration then would he be receiving proper care?

I hope that Taijitsu goes to the top of hisher profession!

Oh I see what you mean now Theist- That is interesting, although I can't say that I hold the same values. Reminds me a little bit of that invasion of the body snatchers. From what I remember there were aliens who took over people's bodies and minds, with the goal that if they could take over everybody then everyone would lead a happy, peaceful life's (But as an alien). Thinking about it, our human inability to just be nice and peaceful is frustrating, and maybe it is our need for freedom that causes it. Then again we would not have some things unless we were able to excersize our freedoms. For example womens rights. If the women had not spoken out and sacrificed their own safety then I, as a girl, would not know the freedoms that I experience now. Also maybe the rules that are being enforced seem 'right' to the person enforcing them, but maybe it's not right for others.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-
Benjamin Franklin, in personal memoirs (1775) (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freedom)

Hi Belinda,
Thanks for your reply and lovely comment - "I hope that Taijitsu goes to the top of hisher profession!"
=]
I agree; people should be treated as an individual with individual needs. I just know I will be heart broken if I enter too many situations where my own personal beliefs contradict with the Social work code of practice.

Cheers
Taijitu

I agree; people should be treated as an individual with individual needs. I just know I will be heart broken if I enter too many situations where my own personal beliefs contradict with the Social work code of practice.

There are many situations in life that you have to throw aside your morals and do what your job entails. Do not, and i stress this, follow your morals completely because life is made to challenge you and change you. I am not saying that you should not follow your morals outside of the Social workers code. I am saying choose your battles and stay alive do not fight everyone.

Should we try to change peoples views on issues that seem 'true' or obvious to morality, or should people be free to form their own opinions?

People are free to form their own opinions, and can and always will be in the position of determining for themselves what to make of the world around them and what others have to say. I don't feel, however, that this means that other people have no place in challenging their views or attempting to change them. In fact, I'd encourage it.

Taijitsu re: your #1

Some time after I posted my previous reply to you I remembered something that a social anthropologist with special knowledge of Jamaica told me about what he called 'slave consciousness'. It seems that in Jamaica colour consciousness is not straightforward 'race prejudice' but is closely related to what is almost a caste system. In this case your 80 year old client may have been requesting a light skinned carer because he believed that a light skinned carer would be better educated and better trained than any black person was likely to be.

The population of Jamaica is mainly of African origin (about 80 percent). Further, there are Indians, Chinese, Lebanese, Jews, and Caucasians. In Jamaica, skin colour and social class are closely connected. One could generally say that the lighter the colour of a person's skin, the higher his/her social standing in the community. In this context, the afore-mentioned structure is therefore also referred to as a 'colour caste' system. The origin of this structure has to be sought in Jamaica's colonial history.

I cut this from an article about ganga, but it was the only thing I could find that was relevant on the net. The author seems quite an authority and the article is well written

Thank you Joshua, that is really good advice. I suppose I am in a better position to help people inside the system even if I won't be able to help everyone. Although it will probably take some getting used to.

And Thank you mystic. That's a good point, although I suppose my main problem comes from the fact that my role as a social worker gives me the power to do more than try to change opinions and I don't want to in any way abuse that power and go against my own ethics (which i'm still figuring out lol) Cheers =]

And that's really cool Belinda, thank you for finding that, you always go out of your way to find relevant things =] Yeah that would be a good explanation for why Mr A has requested that. And also shows me that I need more knowledge on different cultures and how they might influence a persons desisions if i am gonna be a good social worker. Ah the road ahead is long.

Well, thanks again all and good night
Taijitu

Thank you Joshua, that is really good advice. I suppose I am in a better position to help people inside the system even if I won't be able to help everyone. Although it will probably take some getting used to.

Your welcome Taijitu, and yes you are in a better place to help people inside the system and as long as you do not become corrupt like most do you will be of great help to many people you meet.

Hi everyone!

Firstly the name of the thread might be misleading (I was struggling with what to name it) if so I am sorry.

I am studying Social Work at university (Glutton for punishment, I know) and we were given a case study that has put me in a bit of an ethical dillema. Any opinions would be helpful.

Mr A is a 80 year old Black Caribbean man who needs a carer to visit him daily. He has stated that he does not want any black carer's to come to his home. (There was more but that is the gist)

Now. I personally would not judge or treat someone differently based on their skin colour, gender, sexuality etc etc however I also think that people have a basic human right to form their own opinions, regardless of what I think. Of course if Mr A used his opinion to be violent or harmful towards others then that would be different.
Practically it would be difficult to implement a care package that was tailored to that degree, and unethical to discriminate against someone based on skin colour... But if Mr A's wishes were not taken into consideration then would he be receiving proper care?

Freedom to have opinions is, for me, the most beautiful thing in the world. And I would never be able to truly grasp what has happened in someones life for them to form their opinion. But discrimination based on superficial characteristics and the inequality that stems from it is one of the most ugly things in the world.

Should we try to change peoples views on issues that seem 'true' or obvious to morality, or should people be free to form their own opinions?

Thanks for reading
Taijitu

He is not receiving proper care. It is an obvious assumption that he is discriminating but it is still an assumption. Who knows maybe he doesn't want to have a black carer for other reasons not based on discrimination.

The answer is in my essay-do hop along and read it
dear hearts, eh?
trembling with trepidation
always your servant
the Spiteful Mouse

Honestly I'd put it down to money if Mr B can afford it he should be able to pay whoever he likes so long as the market caters for it. As for Mr A beggars cannot be choosers pragmatically I suppose you would just try to work around the issue by sending someone of another nationality particularly if he were mentally fragile and by having a particular race around him he becomes severely distressed and distraught. However I don't see how you could cater to this as a matter of policy in social work so on that basis Mr A's wish is simply an unreasonable request, one which should be baseless in guiding legislation and practice. Heaven and earth should hardly be moved to necessarily cater for but simply one you might acknowledge based on customer service.

This view cannot be taken into a wider context of supporting freedom because let us take this and apply it to all aged care and assume a Mister A1 in a shared nursing home facility. To cater to Mr A1 one would possibly have to organize shifts graveyard, employ on a racial basis and literally have to hide someone else's presence. The only reason why this is remotely controversial in the current situation is one is imagining a one on one relationship so the mental image transcends a larger social implication in it's imagining.