Abstract
Rule 301 in the Code of Professional Conduct — Confidential Client Information — has traditionally been strictly interpreted. In some instances this has placed CPAs in a situation where their own personal moral standards are in conflict with the Code of Professional Conduct. Moral reasoning is suggested as a means of resolving this conflict. The process of moral reasoning is illustrated by contrasting Act Utilitarianism with Rule Utilitarianism. The actual resolution of a moral conflict may result in a CPA violating the Code of Professional Conduct as it is presently being interpreted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cederblom, J. and C. J. Dougherty: 1990,Ethics at Work (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA).
Code of Professional Conduct: 1991, American Institute of Certified Public Accounts, New York.
Harris, C. E. Jr.: 1992,Applying Moral Ethics, 2nd Ed. (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA).
Hermanson, R. H., J. R. Strawser, R. H. Strawser: 1989,Auditing Theory and Practice, 5th Ed. (Irwin, Homewood, IL).
Gigot, P. A.: 1982, ‘Big Fraud Verdict Against Andersen Shakes Up Accounting Profession’,The Wall Street Journal Feb. 3, 25.
Rosen, B.: 1978,Strategies of Ethics (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA).
Statement on Responsibilities in Tax Practice: 1969 (revised), American Institute of Certified Public Accounts, Inc., New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Mark R. Nixon is Assistant Professor at Bentley College, Waltham, Massachusetts. Previously, he was co-founder of a regional telecommunication business, and was involved in public accounting as a sole practitioner and with the Big 8.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nixon, M.R. Ethical reasoning and privileged information: Resolving moral conflict. J Bus Ethics 13, 571–577 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881302
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881302