Ethics is a word derived from the Greek vocabulary meaning custom. It is a branch of philosophy which tries to understand the nature of morals and in other words it can be used to separate the good from the bad. Ethics in counseling therefore implies the moral obligations of the counselor on the method used to attain the result desired. The quality and services offered in this unregulated sector therefore has to apply ethical standards. Counseling will mainly involve the concepts of autonomy, self interest, justice and infidelity so as to achieve its main objective (Daniluk and Haverkamp, 1993)
As one author argues that many people will tend to view various cultural customs and practices as abhorrent and finds it rather sad that counselors will rarely criticize any culture. The author in his article tries to find the reasoning associated with the counselors’ failure to criticize certain aspects of cultures. In his reasoning he tries to support his conclusions on why “universalism” is a factor to contend with within the world’s religious and political boundaries as well as the counseling profession. He asserts his thinking by claiming that “universalism” can be integrated with the various diverse cultures’ principles. He however only gives the procedure of identifying these principles (Richard, Andrea and Erica, 2008).
The author in his article gives the example of a recent clash between two diverse cultures. He gives account of how the Danish newspaper namely the Jyllands-Posten had posted an article “Mohammed’s ansigt” which evoked wild elicitations from the Muslim world. The article contained cartoons and it was meant to depict the title which meant the face of Mohammed. This article provoked not only the Muslims in Denmark but the entire Muslim world. There were protests and counteraccusations with Muslims considering this as blasphemy.
The Muslim world demanded the blood of the journalist while the rest of the world advocated for “respect, tolerance and most importantly peaceful dialogue”. The author goes further to give another example of culture clashes. He gives the example of the so called “honor killings” in the Middle East. He argues that these practices are considered in humane in other countries in the world. The author emphasizes on this clashes in culture by including numerous examples such as genital mutilations, slavery, torture and other situations that are considered in humane.
He gives account of how counselors will not even give the possibility of condemning these customs or cultures. The author’s reasoning of this phenomenon is the fact that counselors are reluctant to follow the footsteps of yesteryears when dominating cultures used to oppress little cultures through “universalism”. He supports this notion by claiming that counselors of this time value ethics more and appreciate the importance of culture sensitivity (Roysircar et al. 2003). He points out the main reason for the hesitance in condemning ruthless cultures is the fact that counselors are basically trained not to criticize or judge other cultures. This means that a counselor will basically assist the client in identifying and applying his own values no matter how diverse they are from the counselor.
The author’s articles may contain some form of goodwill and truth in it but it also has some few hitches here and there. One of the tings that he assumes is that his culture read America is the perfect one. It would be imprudent to use the principle of “universalism” as in the long run it will oppress other cultures and beliefs. The author has however through his “universalism” proposal proved that his writing was only intended for a good cause and not to oppress anyone.