Ethical reasoning and privileged information: Resolving moral conflict
Journal of Business Ethics · 1994 · Volume 13 · Issue 7
Abstract
Rule 301 in the Code of Professional Conduct — Confidential Client Information — has traditionally been strictly interpreted. In some instances this has placed CPAs in a situation where their own personal moral standards are in conflict with the Code of Professional Conduct. Moral reasoning is suggested as a means of resolving this conflict. The process of moral reasoning is illustrated by contrasting Act Utilitarianism with Rule Utilitarianism. The actual resolution of a moral conflict may result in a CPA violating the Code of Professional Conduct as it is presently being interpreted.
Keywords
Economic Growth, Moral Reasoning, Ethical Reasoning, Professional Conduct, Moral Standard
Enable JavaScript for citation tools and additional paper interactions.