I think it is essentially important in social care that social care workers take as seriously their clients as possible. It is fundamental to consider their needs as relevant as possible, although their problems May seem trifling for us . It is not about letting myself be embarrassed by doing things for them but on the other hand to see my help for them as helping myself. Once I see that the client is becoming a problem which needs to be solved I should be considering a burnt-out syndrome .the clients are not problems which need Solutions. Not taking those under me seriously,as well as anybody,but those sobordinate to me is even greater sin. Let us face it – how often it happens to us that we don’t have time for those below us but want those above us to have time for us. If we do not have time for those below us then logically those above us won’t have time for us because we are below them be it in the rank, position or anything.
I was in a discussion about whether handicapped people should be motivated to attain higher education or whether they should be left in the care of other people. My mother told me about a guy who reached secondary school and finished it but the school was very easy and the degree he got made him unable to ask for social care benefits. His parents tried very hard for him to complete the school but now are despondent because he still depends on them and he cannot claim any benefits because he got the degree. Now they think that they would have done better if they hadn’t taught him and rather let him get social care benefits. I do not think that this approach works. On one hand he still depends on his parents and they won’t be able to look after him for very long . it may happen that because of his degree he will end on the street because he cannot claim benefits. but is making life easier the best thing? I think that using his potential instead of just letting it be and go in vain is much better option . I think that life which is fulfilled and difficult is much more rewarding than life which is lived in pleasure and vain. It is also immoral, in my view, to claim money if one is capable and able to earn them.
..with a word. How could have Jesus Christ known what is good and what is bad? Words. Words can be either descriptive or prescriptive. The former option is not absolute and depends on the amount of knowledge about the subject, whereas the latter is absolute and with a sufficient amount of words in debate we can conclude what is right and what is wrong – the difference between good and evil. Jesus, except being God, used words in order to show us what we already know – what is good and what is bad. Words are relative, of course, but to undestand words – to what they direct, if it is distinguishing between Good and Bad, then by the lead of our conscience we can be sure that we know which behaviour is good and which is bad. I do not think that one has to learn that crimes are not good – be it any crime. Even the psychopaths who do evil because of their lack of emotional response and cause damage to their victims know that their acts are evil and immoral, yet they do not want to refrain from doing such things-that does not mean that they cannot, once one understands or has the capability of understanding, he will be hold responsible for his acts. Humans have conscience, animals do not. Via the usage of words, we can conclude what we already know what is right. It is not inventing which are good and bad things, it is discovering what is hidden beneath the layer of superficial brilliance of today´s world. I think that everyone with a clear conscience would agree that doing good is the highest human virtue and basically the most and only important thing in the life on any human. Such that no other living creature is capable of. Doing good just for good´s sake, not thinking about the consequence and gains that I will consequently get. Doing good can however have many shapes and forms. This is where we delve deeper into the problematics of morality. For someone one thing is moral and one immoral. Many things differ with perspective, view, opionion, knowledge and experience. Not morality. One does not need any experience or knowledge to know what is right and wrong. Of course, when I hurt someone for the first time, I see that it is evil and I do not do it for the secondth time, but I do not need anybody to tell me that it is a bad thing to do – hurting others. Opinion changes with experience, the one who is more experienced can improve ours, but it cannot change with what purpose one does everything – good or bad intentions. The change cannot come from outside-it can only come from the inner of human. Words can help us find what we have within us and maybe what we have burried somewhere deep inside our souls. A concerete situation does not have and absolute moral answer to what is good and what is a bad choice, this varies with experience and knowledge. Nevertheless, hypothetically we can conclude what is right and what is wrong.
I like to present a moral choice of the well-known Sophia. How should one choose between saving of one´s children-one or the other? The answer may sound cruel, but it would be choosing none of the children. Deciding among two – both evil choices resuls in less evil than the death of both, but it still is evil. The only morally sound answer would be not choosing. The voluntary death of the children would have a great value. There is nothing better than dying for a moral cause. In reality I would also weigh pragmatically and would choose one child, but it would not be the best option. It is reasonable to choose the younger/stronger etc. depending on my opinion, but imagine the surviving child thinking about his parent´s choice. Would not want one rather die, than put somone into such a predicament of deciding between two same-value lifes? As a child I would rather die than force the parent to make such a choice. Choice is what distinguishes us from other living beings, we all have a choice. The highest choice being of course voluntary death for what I believe is right. If the guard said that without choosing the child, he would kill all three of us-such a death would be the most virtuous one can die of.
I read somewhere another moral dilemma-a pregnant woman gets stuck in an entrance to a cave and the people in the cave cannot get out and will die in a few hourse before of influx. Is it morally acceptable to blow the woman up with a dynamite (this being the only option offered) rather than letting the people inside die? Again, we have to distinguish between a voluntary death of giving up trying and a voluntary death of clear conscience – determining that there is not another way than killing the pregnant woman in order to save others and thus it is morally better for us to die than do the “little” evil of killing one person in order to save others, because the death of others would mean a “greater” evil than killing one person. I do not believe in little evil. Not even a little bit. Not even the smallest evil. Evil is always evil. Once I deplete all other options then the only one is to die in order to not do any small evil. I often ask whoat would Jesus do? Would he kill an innocent person in order to save others? The result would of course be the death of all people in the cave, instead of just a one.
As a social care worker I often deal with a dilemma of letting or not letting people with mental illness hurt themselves – this depends on opinion. One can stop someone from hurting himself by using a straitjacket or one can let him hurt himself because free choice is the most important asset of humans. Both options can be morally justified if are done with the intention of helping those people. Which option is better depends then on experience. Debate about morality (one absolute choice- the best as proposed above) should not be mixed with the debate about the treatment of people with mental illnesses because this depends on knowledge about the problematics of mental disorders.
Society today rejects old age and suffering as something bad . I think that suffering should be seen as a way a making life better. What is easily received is usually nothing that that can be really valued. If people perceived suffering as something which makes them better then they would not try so much to avoid it. I do not say that making life easier is inherently bad for mankind but the time which was formerly spent in doing work that now is done by machines should be used not for leisure time but for improving conditions of mankind. the time saved thanks to machines is not often spent reasonably. People use it very often for doing bad things. This does not mean that we should return to the age when everything was done by humans,but it is better to do the kind of work which was done by machine then doing bad things . It is important to understand that the amount of time we now have it thanks to other people’s invention and investment of energy. This makes us responsible for using that time reasonably eg not for ourself but for doing good.
Locking Someone behind the bars can be seen as both beneficial and detrimental. On one hand locking someone in doesn’t mean that you change him. Jail should be seen as a help not as a punishment. Person in a jail should think about what he or she did and understand why it is wrong. Jail shouldn’t be seen as a stigma that someone is bad but that someone changed to another better person. Problem with restriction principle is that it is rather difficult to change someone from outside eg with jail but it is much more important to change people from inside eg to change the cause and purpose why they do wrong immoral deeds. People who commit a crime should be helped in the jail and not be stigmatized. I believe that everyone is capable of being good. I believe that everyone can understand why it is better to be good rather than do wrong usually easy pleasurable things. What is easy and pleasurable might not be a crime but is very often wrong for oneself. people have voice box which animal do not. I think that this voice box is not here for describing things but for prescribing things, eg what one should do. That is why we have words, so let us use them. We have the ability of doing when we see something wrong and we have the ability of speaking when something is wrong and we cannot change it with our deeds.