UPI Study › Courses › Ethics in Technology › Free lessons › Lesson 15.3 Free with a free account
How Personal Values and Professional Ethics Intersect in the Modern Workplace
Ethics in Technology · Chapter 15: Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital CitizenshipSection 15.3 · lesson 102 of 11615 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Ethics in Technology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Ethics in Technology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Why Organizations Need Clear Distinctions Between Ethics, Morals, and Business Values →← Developing Independent Moral Judgment in Professional and Business EnvironmentsNext lesson: Why Organizations Need Clear Distinctions Between Ethics, Morals, and Business Values →
In this lesson
Role morality, conflicts of interest and values alignment at work.
- Explain role morality and the defense-counsel example
- Distinguish the 3 conflict-of-interest types
- Compare values conflicts with competing personal stakes
- Use response options and values-alignment practices
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,894 words). Read along, or search it.
Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital Citizenship
Personal Values and Professional Ethics
Work can create tension. A role's expectations can differ from what someone personally believes is right. This lesson examines role morality, conflicts of interest, and disagreements over personal and organizational values. We will explain why a professional role can carry specific duties, without abandoning ordinary ethics. The defense-attorney example shows how personal belief and professional responsibility can point in different directions. We will distinguish financial, relationship, and competing-loyalty conflicts, preserving the examples supplied by the reading. We will compare a values disagreement, with a potentially compromising personal stake. These are different ethical questions. Those distinctions matter because different problems require different forms of assessment, rather than one generic response. The source presents four response options, from raising a concern internally to deciding whether to stay. It also recommends four alignment practices, comparing stated values with the organization's actual ethical track record. The aim is to recognize the issue accurately, then choose a suitable response within applicable duties.
Role Morality
Professional Duties Add to Everyday Ethical Expectations
Role morality concerns the specific ethical expectations attached to a professional position, and its purpose. Those expectations can differ from the general standards guiding a person in everyday personal life. Everyday morality is framed through personal conscience and social norms, when someone acts as themselves. The diagram's ordinary example is telling a friend the honest truth, about a bad idea. Professional role morality focuses instead on someone acting within a specific role, and its duties. The source's contrasting example is defense counsel representing a client, whom the attorney believes guilty. The everyday comparison emphasizes what a reasonable person thinks right; the professional comparison emphasizes ethical role requirements. Taking a role adds obligations, and sometimes permissions. These arise from what the role exists to accomplish. It does not suspend ethics. An employer's instruction is not automatically acceptable conduct. Ask what the role ethically requires, while keeping its continuing ethical and legal limits in view.
Defense Counsel
Testing the Case Is an Ethical Professional Function
A defense attorney may ethically represent a client. The attorney may still personally believe that client is guilty. The reading explains this through the professional function: testing the case made by the prosecution. Fulfilling that function well is something the legal system depends on, beyond the attorney's personal judgment. Personal belief about guilt is one consideration. It does not, by itself, settle whether representation is ethically appropriate. The American Bar Association's model permits criminal defense requiring every element of the case to be established. That supports the example's central distinction, between personal belief and the professional function of defense counsel. The role still carries other ethical obligations, and applicable professional rules and law remain relevant. Role morality is therefore not permission to abandon ethical limits, simply because the client benefits. Keep the example focused on fulfilling the defense function, rather than treating it as approval of every possible tactic. The first review answer should explain the role's purpose, not merely claim that professional ethics is different.
3 Conflict Types
Different Personal Interests Can Compromise Judgment
A conflict of interest concerns personal interests that could reasonably compromise professional judgment. Actual influence need not have occurred. The source distinguishes three forms, making it easier to recognize the relevant stake before problems arise. A financial conflict concerns a personal financial interest, which could affect a professional decision. The example is choosing a vendor. That vendor is partly owned by a family member of the decision maker. A relationship conflict concerns a personal or family relationship, which could interfere with objective judgment. The example is supervising and evaluating a close friend's work, where the relationship could affect evaluation. A competing-loyalty conflict concerns duties to different parties, pulling the person in opposite directions. The example is consulting for a competitor of one's employer, creating competing professional loyalties. Distinguish the type of stake involved, rather than assuming every conflict concerns personal financial gain. Each example raises a potential influence on duty; none alone proves that a particular decision was biased.
Recognize the Risk
A Conflict Is Not Proof of a Biased Decision
The definition concerns a reasonable risk to judgment, rather than requiring proof that bias already occurred. Timing matters. Waiting for a visibly distorted decision can leave a conflict unaddressed. Identifying a family interest in a vendor recognizes a stake, before deciding whether it affected the choice. A friendship in an evaluation flags a relationship. It does not, on its own, prove favoritism. The competing-loyalty example identifies conflicting duties, even before a specific damaging act is established. Recognition and accusation should therefore remain distinct, with the actual facts examined through an appropriate process. A potential conflict may need action, even if the person feels confident about remaining objective. That confidence does not remove the personal interest, or determine what the applicable rules require. The source encourages recognizing the forms early, so the issue can be assessed before influencing judgment. Use the conflict label accurately, without turning possible influence into an unsupported finding of misconduct.
Disclosure and Review
Transparency Starts the Assessment; It Does Not Settle Permission
Disclosure means openly reporting a potential conflict. It lets others assess the possible effect on professional judgment. The source emphasizes transparency, rather than assuming every personal interest or connection must automatically be banned. That is an explanation of why disclosure matters, rather than a complete rule for every profession. Some situations require recusal, reassignment, restrictions, or another authorized remedy, beyond reporting the interest. The applicable requirements determine whether participation is permitted, rather than the person's disclosure deciding that alone. For example, legal-profession rules recognize conflicts that cannot simply be resolved by consent or disclosure. Government ethics guidance likewise includes remedies, rather than treating financial disclosure as the whole solution. Start by reporting the relevant stake through an appropriate route. The situation can then be assessed. Then follow the required response, instead of assuming transparency automatically eliminates the underlying conflict. The review answer should connect disclosure with informed assessment, while preserving these limits on permission.
Values Versus Interests
Disagreement About Right Differs From a Competing Stake
Values conflicts concern disagreement about what is right. They differ from conflicts of interest. The individual's values may conflict with the organization's expectations or practices, without any competing personal gain. A conflict of interest instead concerns a stake, which could bias the performance of a professional duty. That stake could involve money, a relationship, or competing loyalties, as the three examples illustrate. The distinction changes the question you ask, before deciding how the issue should be addressed. For an interest conflict, ask what personal stake competes with the duty to exercise professional judgment. For a values conflict, ask what the person believes is wrong about the expectation or practice. Role morality supplies another question: what does this particular professional role ethically require from its members? These issues can arise together. Their definitions should not be blurred into one general feeling of discomfort. Identify the issue clearly, so the response actually addresses its ethical basis and relevant facts.
Response Options
The Source Presents 4 Ways to Address a Values Conflict
The second source diagram presents four response options, moving from internal discussion toward more formal consideration. First, raise the concern internally, with a manager or someone close to the decision where suitable. A conversation can explain an issue that the other person had not previously understood or heard. Second, use formal channels when the concern remains unresolved. Examples include human resources, ethics hotlines, or compliance. Third, escalate a serious unresolved concern, beyond the immediate team responsible for the situation. Fourth, decide whether to stay, weighing whether the mismatch is livable or a reason to leave. Those options preserve the reading's progression, without requiring every disagreement to reach the final stage. It does not require every concern to begin with the person involved. The circumstances can justify a different route. The seriousness and circumstances matter, alongside any applicable duties governing how the concern should be raised. Use the progression as a practical set of options, rather than a compulsory ladder for every case.
Use the Appropriate Route
The Progression Is a Set of Options, Not a Compulsory Ladder
Some disagreements resolve after the first conversation. That can happen when the concern becomes understood. That possibility makes a suitable discussion useful, without proving that most values conflicts resolve informally. Later options exist for issues that do not resolve easily, or require more formal attention. The immediate situation can affect the appropriate route, rather than the diagram deciding the route automatically. A concern involving applicable reporting duties needs those duties considered, alongside the general response options. The person should therefore assess the concern's nature and seriousness, before choosing how to raise it. The final option is deciding whether to stay. It does not instruct leaving whenever values differ. Consider whether the mismatch is one you can live with, as the source asks. The point is to have options for a real disagreement, rather than pretend every conflict disappears. Keep the ethical concern clear throughout the process, so changing the route does not replace addressing the issue.
Values Alignment
4 Habits Compare Stated Values With Actual Practice
Four alignment practices help compare an organization's stated values, with what it actually does under ethical pressure. First, research before accepting a role. Examine how past ethical situations were actually handled. A mission statement explains the organization's desired image, but may differ from its conduct in practice. Second, read the code of conduct closely, treating it as a real statement of expected behavior. Ask about vague expectations, or apparent inconsistencies between the code and what you have observed. Third, ask direct interview questions, about how a specific ethical tension was handled in the past. That is more concrete than asking only whether the organization values integrity in the abstract. Fourth, revisit alignment periodically. Practices can change after the initial decision to accept a role. Alignment is therefore an ongoing assessment, rather than a question settled once and then forgotten. Use the track record as evidence, while checking whether the organization's present practices still fit your values.
5 Key Terms
Name the Issue Before Choosing a Response
Five key terms help name the issue, before selecting a response to a workplace ethical tension. Role morality means the specific ethical expectations attached to a professional role, beyond everyday personal conduct. A conflict of interest means personal interests could reasonably compromise judgment, whether or not they actually do. A values conflict means a genuine disagreement, between personal values and organizational expectations or practices. Disclosure means openly reporting a potential interest conflict, so its effect and required response can be assessed. A code of conduct is the organization's formal statement, of the behavior expected from its members. The takeaways preserve ethical limits on roles, and distinguish financial, relationship, and competing-loyalty interests. They also distinguish personal stakes from values disagreements, with disclosure supporting assessment rather than automatic permission. Suitable conversations and formal options can address disagreements, without assuming a universal pattern of informal resolution. Research actual conduct before accepting a role, and revisit alignment as organizational practices change over time.
Review Questions
Explain the 5 Distinctions in the Source Review
The first review asks about defense counsel: explain why testing the prosecution's case serves the professional role. The second asks about financial and loyalty conflicts: distinguish a monetary stake from competing duties to parties. Use the source examples, comparing the family-owned vendor with consulting for a competitor of one's employer. The third asks why disclosure matters: transparency allows assessment, rather than automatically banning every potential connection. Remember that applicable rules may still require a remedy, or prohibit participation despite disclosure. The fourth asks about values and interest conflicts: distinguish disagreement about right, from a potentially biasing stake. A values conflict does not require personal financial gain, or a relationship competing with the duty. The fifth asks why the track record matters: past conduct shows practice, beyond the organization's stated image. Explain the distinction behind each answer, rather than treating the labels as interchangeable names for discomfort. Then choose a suitable response, grounded in the actual issue, evidence, role duties, and available options.
About Ethics in Technology at UPI Study
Ethics in Technology (Computer Science 195) is a self-paced online course of 116 video lessons in 15 chapters, from cybersecurity basics, privacy and surveillance to big data, hacking, malware, network defense, intellectual property, cybercrime, encryption, emerging technology and digital citizenship. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Computer Science courses
Compare: Cybersecurity vs Ethics in Technology · Which ethics course?
Why take it here
Why students take Ethics in Technology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Ethics in Technology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About How Personal Values and Professional Ethics Intersect in the Modern Workplace
What is role morality in professional ethics?
What are the three types of conflict of interest?
Does disclosing a conflict of interest make it acceptable?
What should you do when your personal values conflict with your employer's practices?
About the Ethics in Technology course
How many college credits is Ethics in Technology?
How much does Ethics in Technology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Ethics in Technology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Ethics in Technology.
116 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →