Critical Commentary 1243 consequentialism(focusing on the outcomes of actions). These challenges have come from a revival of virtue ethics(focusing on qualities of charac- ter), the development of an ethics of care(focusing on caring relationships), communitarian ethics (focusing on community, responsibility and co- operation) and pluralist, discursive, postmodern or anti-theory approaches to ethics(eschewing single, foundational all( embracin g theories ). TI ese trends are beginning to be recognized not only in introductory and advanced textbooks that give overviews of relevant theories(Banks 2004; Hugman, 2005), but also in scholarly articles arguing for the relevance of some of these approaches to social work ethics, particularly virtue ethics McBeath and Webb, 2002; Clark, 2006; Gray and Lovat, 2007)and the ethics of care, often associated with feminist approaches to ethics(Clifford, 2002: Orme, 2002; Parton, 2003: Graham, 2007). Some of these articles are rather speculative, which is not surprising, given the difficulty of articulating detailed theoretical approach and showing its relevance to social work practice in a single article. The next stage for social work ethics will be example, an ethics of care or virtue ethics for social work would look like, along the lines of those developed in health care, social policy and related fields(e.g. Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1993; Kuhse, 1997; Sevenhuisen 1998: Oakley and Cocking, 2001 These 'new' approaches to social work ethics pay attention to the situ ated nature of values and conduct, as embedded in families, relationships, communities and cultures, and take account of commitments to specific others, motives and emotions. They are not based on universally valid abstract principles, promoting individual freedoms and rights that apply worldwide across all cultures. They may offer more scope, therefore, to respond to the critique of the dominance of Western (particularly Anglo-American) approaches to ethics, which place the individual moral agent in the centre of the picture, rationally weighing up the T95≌9 balance of individual duties and rights. The critique of the cultural imperi alism of a particular version of principle-based ethics is not new in social work(see Ejaz, 1991; Silavwe, 1995). Indeed, it is an on-going theme for debate (Yip, 2004; Healy, 2007: Hugman, 2008), especially in relation to the recently created international standards for social work and revised statement of ethical principles (International Federation of Workers and international association of schools of social Work 2005). The debate about the extent to which there are or should be versally valid ethical principles or criteria for judging character and conduct is particularly pertinent in social work. For social work is both an international social movement, concerned to promote social across the world, and a situated practice that takes place in a of national laws, policies and cultures, albeit with increasingly ethnic populations. These issues about universalism, relativism and parti cularism in ethics are very much alive in moral philosophy, often linked toconsequentialism (focusing on the outcomes of actions). These challenges have come from a revival of virtue ethics (focusing on qualities of charac￾ter), the development of an ethics of care (focusing on caring relationships), communitarian ethics (focusing on community, responsibility and co￾operation) and pluralist, discursive, postmodern or anti-theory approaches to ethics (eschewing single, foundational all-embracing theories). These trends are beginning to be recognized not only in introductory and advanced textbooks that give overviews of relevant theories (Banks, 2004; Hugman, 2005), but also in scholarly articles arguing for the relevance of some of these approaches to social work ethics, particularly virtue ethics (McBeath and Webb, 2002; Clark, 2006; Gray and Lovat, 2007) and the ethics of care, often associated with feminist approaches to ethics (Clifford, 2002; Orme, 2002; Parton, 2003; Graham, 2007). Some of these articles are rather speculative, which is not surprising, given the difficulty of articulating a detailed theoretical approach and showing its relevance to social work practice in a single article. The next stage for social work ethics will be the publication of detailed book-length expositions outlining what, for example, an ethics of care or virtue ethics for social work would look like, along the lines of those developed in health care, social policy and related fields (e.g. Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1993; Kuhse, 1997; Sevenhuisen, 1998; Oakley and Cocking, 2001). These ‘new’ approaches to social work ethics pay attention to the situ￾ated nature of values and conduct, as embedded in families, relationships, communities and cultures, and take account of commitments to specific others, motives and emotions. They are not based on universally valid, abstract principles, promoting individual freedoms and rights that apply worldwide across all cultures. They may offer more scope, therefore, to respond to the critique of the dominance of Western (particularly Anglo-American) approaches to ethics, which place the individual moral agent in the centre of the picture, rationally weighing up the balance of individual duties and rights. The critique of the cultural imperi￾alism of a particular version of principle-based ethics is not new in social work (see Ejaz, 1991; Silavwe, 1995). Indeed, it is an on-going theme for debate (Yip, 2004; Healy, 2007; Hugman, 2008), especially in relation to the recently created international standards for social work and revised statement of ethical principles (International Federation of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of Social Work, 2004, 2005). The debate about the extent to which there are or should be uni￾versally valid ethical principles or criteria for judging character and conduct is particularly pertinent in social work. For social work is both an international social movement, concerned to promote social justice across the world, and a situated practice that takes place in a context of national laws, policies and cultures, albeit with increasingly multi￾ethnic populations. These issues about universalism, relativism and parti￾cularism in ethics are very much alive in moral philosophy, often linked to Critical Commentary 1243 at Fudan university on January 6, 2011 bjsw.oxfordjournals.org Downloaded from