How does what I've learnt fit into the theoretical ethical framework?

After consulting the reader I've learned that the foundation of ethics and morality is derived from various sources such as religion, family, personal conscience and that it has a wide and much studied history but what's right and wrong is not easily defined and depends upon each individual's opinion and point of view.

I feel, looking at ethics on a personal level, that most people follow a "code of conduct" either consciously or subconsciously to maintain a good, positive lifestyle. My personal "code of conduct" may differ to the next persons, but what they are following may be right to them whether for professional ethical reasons or personal ethical reasons just as my own law of ethics may be right to me. I have also learned that looking at something from a professional point of view or a personal point of view can alter the reasoning behind ethics.

Case study 2 in the reader for example, I can see this from both a professional ethical level and a personal ethical level.

The documentary photographer Kevin Carter chose to follow his professional ethics. His job was to observe and to capture. If he had intervened then he would have been disrespecting the importance of his position in the job. Instead, he saw the girl and the vulture as art and he didn't interfere to offer help. This meant that he stayed true to his job (professional ethics) but not to himself (personal ethics).
Hundreds of people contacted the New York Times where the photograph first appeared in 1993, wanting to know what had happened to the young girl. It was unknown whether she had reached food or water. The world was shocked and unprepared to accept Kevin Carter's reasons behind why he had chosen to not intervene to help the girl. They were looking at the scenario from a personal ethical level.

I have thought about a time when my personal ethics sometimes battle with my professional ethics.
When I am choreographing a piece for a show my aim is to make it the best that it can be. If I have a dancer who is at a high standard technically and who I am confident can perform my choreography well then viewing it from a professional ethical level I am likely to put her into the piece. However, there may be another girl who is less technical and not as good at performing but is a lot more passionate about dance than the other girl and works a lot harder and would probably appreciate the opportunity much more, then looking at it from a personal ethical level I am more inclined to choose her. If I made my decision following my professional ethics then the piece I had choreographed would be the best it can be and I would be respecting my job but totally ignoring and disrespecting my personal views. If I made my decision following my personal ethics then the piece I had choreographed wouldn't look as good so therefore I would be hurting my job but I would be much more satisfied on a personal level.

I was brought up in a Christian family so I was always told from a young age what was right and wrong and was taught to abide by the ten commandments. These commandments provided me with an ethical guideline to ensure that I acted in a way that was going to produce positive results and not injure anyone else.

It is said that the origin of ethics come from the Greek word ethos.

Ethos is a word to describe the character of a person and where their values lie so as to understand the driving force behind the decisions they make and their way of life.

When I teach a dance class, I am aware that I am fully responsible for that group of children and that they are under my care. It is my duty to ensure that I do everything in my power to keep them safe and provide for them a positive and safe environment to work in where they can trust and look up to me. These fundamental points come from having an ethical outlook, or in other words, a desire to produce a result that is morally good.

I have always classed honesty as one of my strong traits and I believe in my heart that it is always good to be honest. However, the theoretical approach of Consequentialism is to act in a way which will produce good consequences. This then makes me start questioning the approach of honesty, while it may be right to be honest if we are following the Christian commandments, if it's producing a bad outcome, for example, somebody is hurt, or it causes negative feelings, then no good has been gained and the result is damaging. Surely then if this is the case, is it better to lie?

Sometimes in teaching I am faced with the difficulty in deciding in whether it is best to deliver a truth that will hurt or a lie that will reassure.
A parent may ask why their child is not in the next class above and depending on the situation and the person I have two options. I can tell the truth and say it is because the child is not yet at the ability and standard required for the next class up or I can twist the truth and put it down to age. I have given both these answers on several occasions to different people depending on my judgement whether I thought they would prefer the truth or a lie.

The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, considered lying to be always wrong no matter what the outcome may be. He argued that if it was acceptable to lie then it would become a way of life and nobody would be able to trust one another.

I agree with this arguement, for although the reasons behind the lying might be for a greater good, I believe we can all find justification in our actions of why we have done something and we can put reasoning behind a lie which justifies why we felt it was the right thing to do, so it becomes easy to find the "good" in a lie. To me, truth is what's important and it should be what we strive for.