Abstract

Bob Brecher raises a critique of professional ethics on the basis that it is less concerned with the protection of the public and is more a legalistic device that protects professionals from being accountable, often by defining certain issues out of court. His argument is criticised on the basis that it focuses upon the existing professions, and does not address the general idea of professionalism. This paper presents professionalism as being based in the idea of a job well done, which in turn has to be understood in the context of the long-range needs of the full person, not in narrowly defined task terms. Supplementary arguments of Brecher, such as the primacy of morality, and his adaptation of Kant’s third formulation of the categorical imperative, are also commented upon and critiqued.