What is Common Morality?

Common morality is not about your own beliefs or sentiments. Instead of asking "Would this action be acceptable if everyone in society knew about it?" If the response is in the affirmative, it is consistent with common moral principles (Gert, 2004). Ten universal moral principles exist:

Do not kill

Do not cause pain

Do not disable

Do not deprive of freedom

Do not deprive of pleasure

Do not deceive

Do not cheat

Keep your promises

Do your durt

Obey the law

In addition to preventing harm, common morality promotes wellbeing and constructive objectives like lowering:

Death

Pain

Disability

Loss of freedom

Loss of pleasure

What Is Utilitarianism? 

Utilitarianism adopts an alternative strategy. It poses the question, "Which action creates the greatest overall good or prevents the most harm?" in place of rules. Reamer (2021)

For instance, if a teenage client intends to harm someone:

The client's trust is safeguarded by keeping it a secret.

Potential victims are protected by reporting it.

A utilitarian perspective selects the course of action that minimizes harm and maximizes benefits for the greatest number of individuals.

Potential Conflict: Individual rights, such as privacy and autonomy, may occasionally clash with an emphasis on results. Social workers have to strike a compromise between professional ethical norms and practical implications (Moore & Arora, 2009).

 

How These Frameworks Align with NASW Ethics

Though in slightly different ways, both theories assist social workers in making moral decisions.

Common ethics:

strongly conforms to NASW principles (NASW, 2021)

gives precise guidelines that safeguard customers and advance justice.

 

Utilitarianism

promotes social fairness and the general well-being of society

needs to be carefully considered in order to prevent individual rights violations.

 

Combining the two methods enables social workers to take into account both ethical obligations and practical results.

 

Applying This to a Case

Situation: An adolescent client intends to hurt a peer.

Common ethics:

Would this be acceptable in society? No,

Reporting the threat is justified by the moral precepts "do not kill" and "do not cause pain" (Gert. 2005).

 

Utilitarianism

Reporting helps the larger group and keeps peers safe (Reamer, 2021).

Alignment with NASW:

Standard 1.07 permits disclosure in order to avert significant, immediate harm (NASW, 2021).

The same ethical result—reporting the hazard while safeguarding all those involved—is guided by both theories.

References: 

 

Gert, B. (2004). Common morality : deciding what to do. Oxford University Press.

Gert, B. (2005). Common morality : deciding what to do (pp. 45–68). Oxford University Press.

Moore, T. S., & Arora, S. S. (2009). The Limits of Paternalism: A Case Study of Welfare Reform in Wisconsin. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.3452

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics. National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

Reamer, F. G. (2021). The Trolley Problem and the Nature of Intention: Implications for Social Work Ethi. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 18(2), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.55521/10-018-208