CLPEX Chat Board

I just reported myself for an "Ethics Violation" and requested an investigation.

We'll see what happens...

This is kind of amusing I wouldn't have guessed people would be so sensitive...

Thus spoke Bob - 'Divine Guidance is dead'....

Dennis Degler wrote:If a person doesn't feel obligated by a divine source to do what is right, then why does the conscience bother?

Are those who seek "Divine guidance" the sole possessors of ethics and conscience? Is it possible for a nonbeliever to honest and ethical?

Or should a "Code of Ethics" perhaps be free from religious overtones?

If an atheist signs the code avowing he will seek Divine guidance, then mustn't he be unethical?

If an atheist signs the code but crosses out the Divine guidance clause, then he may be ethical. But if the IAI accepts the application, then there is a tacit agreement that the clause is meaningless. If so, why is that clause in the Code in the first place? And if an applicant can cross out that clause, what other clauses might be crossed out without negating the application?

If an applicant is free to cross out that or any other clause in the Code, then the code itself becomes meaningless. If that clause is an important part of the Code, then only those who acknowledge a Supreme Being and who seek Divine guidance can be members of the IAI or certified in any of its disciplines that have a similar clause in their certification codes.

Shouldn't there be separation of church and IAI?

You can believe in God or whatever deity you so choose and still not have to seek divine guidance when performing your duties as a forensic scientist. There are plenty of religious individuals who are scientists, but they do not need to seek their priest of whatever divine conduit they choose in order to carry out a fingerprint ID ethically. Do you pray to the Patron Saint of AFIS before every search?
Ethics should be a set of rules governing the conduct of our professional group. They should be clear and enforceable. Do we really think that we could make a case against a member for not having enough "zeal"? Instead what we have right now is a professional code of morality.
If we were still a small group of like minded individuals prescribing to the same set of moral codes then our current code of ethics would work just fine. But the IAI is an international organization with many different ideas and values. We should look the academy’s code of ethics and adopt something similar. I hope this comes up for vote again next year and that there is some way for the membership at large to weigh in on this issue.

David Johnson wrote:I hope this comes up for vote again next year and that the is some way for the membership at large to weigh in on this issue.

Dave Grieve has it right. If a statistically small group of members attends the business meeting, then they control the organization. That may have been the only way to do it in 1915, but in the intervening century things have changed. A reasonably astute IT guy should be able to implement a system of voting by email. Only then would the word "international" be an accurate description of the association.

David Johnson wrote:We should look the academy’s code of ethics and adopt something similar.

I believe you meant to write "The Academy" with a large "A" . . . as it is a proper name referring to a specific entity . . . as opposed to "an academy" which would be a lower case "a". Please be more careful in the future.

If IAI members find The Academy Code of Ethics appealing, please consider joining the organization. More information can be found here . . .

http://www.aafs.org/how-become-aafs-member

You are correct "The Academy". I appoligize and do not wish to incure the wrath the guys and gals in lab coats over at The Academy.

Pat A. Wertheim wrote:If an applicant is free to cross out that or any other clause in the Code, then the code itself becomes meaningless.

Exactly! When my Forensic Photography certification came up for renewal, I did cross off the Divine guidance phrase, and my recertification went through. I wonder what would have happened if I had crossed off the line which states, "I will employ my technical knowledge factually." When I did submit my application for renewal, I didn't know if it would be accepted or not. The fact that it was does indicate that the IAI considers that part of the code to me meaningless. If it's meaningless, then it doesn't belong.

There are other lines that don't belong, as well - such as having "seal and determination." I applaud whoever worked on a revision for doing so, and for bringing it up for a vote. My hope is that we can address that issue, and the others that have been brought up on this thread.

And, to answer Dennis' question about the domain of ethics - a person who chooses to act ethically may have religious foundations for their ethical system or not; just as those who act unethically may have religious belief or not. I believe that most religions state that their religion doesn't make one perfect and that sin continues to exist among the faithful.

George Reis wrote: And, to answer Dennis' question about the domain of ethics - a person who chooses to act ethically may have religious foundations for their ethical system or not; just as those who act unethically may have religious belief or not. I believe that most religions state that their religion doesn't make one perfect and that sin continues to exist among the faithful.

George, I believe Dennis was asking a different question. A Code of Ethics under "Divine Guidance" derives it's authority from a "higher power". If you do not subscribe to a "higher power", from where or from what does a Code of Ethics derive its authority? Is it by fiat? You may argue that it is a consensus opinion of the membership (though not in the IAI's case if less than 10% of the membership voted). But, ethics, at its core, deals with right versus wrong action. It is a set of values by which we judge behaviour. For example, we espouse integrity, but what makes integrity desirable?

FYI, that's a rhetorical question (that is to say, I'm not offering an answer). I'm simply trying to restate Dennis's question as I understand it (and sorry George it is apostrophe "s" to make the possessive form of "Dennis". If the noun is already plural, like "Daniels", then you just add the apostrophe, "Daniels' book". But if the noun is singular, Jesus, then you must add the apostrophe "s", Jesus's.)

Thanks for the grammar lesson 16. My daughter used to be very critical of these things. When she lived at home, I used to ask her to review my writing, and she't almost always come up with a correction or two. I recently had a conversation about grammar with a friend whose daughter has a master's degree in linguistics. She, apparently, used to also proofread his writing - which is how our conversation started. She told him that the current thinking is that, if the idea is communicated so that others understand it, then things like grammar and spelling become less relevant. Although I think she's right - I agree with you that I'd like to have all my i's dotted and t's crossed.

Back to Dennis's statement and my response - Dennis wrote:

<quote>What I find really curious is why someone who says they don't believe in God (and I have to assume this is the same as not seeking divine guidance) would have a bothered conscience by signing a paper agreeing to do something they have no intention of doing. If a person doesn't feel obligated by a divine source to do what is right, then why does the conscience bother?</quote>

When I read that, it appears to be asking about individual's ethics, not the source of the ethical code of an organization.

That said, the point you raise about the basis for an organization's code of ethics is quite valid. Since your question was rhetorical, I'll leave it at that - except to say that a rhetorical question doesn't mean that you aren't offering an answer, but that you aren't asking for one.