Philosophical Ethics versus Professional Accounting Ethics Essay Example For Students

Philosophical Ethics versus Professional Accounting Ethics Essay Outline1 Introduction2 The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants3 Egoism vs. AICPA4 Utilitarianism vs. AICPA5 Deontology vs. AICPA6 Virtue Ethics vs. AICPA7 The Securities and Exchange Commission8 Egoism vs. SEC9 Utilitarianism vs. SEC10 Deontology vs. SEC11 Virtue Ethics vs. SEC12 The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board13 Egoism vs. PCAOB14 Utilitarianism vs. PCAOB15 Deontology vs. PCAOB16 Virtue Ethics vs. PCAOB17 The International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation18 Egoism vs. IASC19 Utilitarianism vs. IASC20 Deontology vs. IASC21 Virtue Ethics vs. IASC22 Decision Introduction Since the beginning of awareness, the true construct of right and incorrect is one that has eluded human existences. Though there exists some general consensus as to the cardinal base of these constructs, seldom do people as a whole to the full agree on the constructs of moralss and morality. While some people and companies use faith and jurisprudence to steer their ain ethical behaviour, the inquiry remains whether worlds are genuinely born with these constructs embedded into their mind, whether they can be learned, or whether they are rational at all. Different civilizations, life experiences, and upbringings have driven different forms of human idea to the point that it is extremely dubious that one common land can of all time be reached. It is because of this phenomenon that philosophers have developed several typical schools of idea in an effort to steer and apologize certain facets of human ethical and moral behaviour. Egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtuousness morals s are merely a few illustrations of these schools of idea. Egoism is an thought based entirely in self-interest. Advocates of this school of idea believe that one should make merely what is in one s ain best involvements, irrespective of how any peculiar action affects others and whether such behaviour is ethical or unethical. In contrast to egoism, utilitarianism provinces that any action should be one that provides the greatest benefit the greatest sum of people. Like egoism, whether or non the action is ethical or unethical is irrelevant ; utilitarianism is merely concerned with the result. Unlike egoism and utilitarianism, which are merely concerned with results, deontology is merely concerned with the morality of the peculiar action that is taken. Deontology advocates that one should ever handle others with regard and to handle people as an terminal, neer as a agency. The result of such an action is irrelevant every bit long as the regulation is followed and purposes are wholesome. Finally virtue moralss, in contrast to the three antecedently mentioned schools of idea, topographic points accent on the moral character of the individual perpetrating the act. Virtue moralss contends that virtuous people act morally. However, virtuousness must foremost be defined to give significance to the virtuousness moralss place. Grecian philosopher Aristotle defined four central virtuousnesss that society should be built upon ; wisdom, justness, bravery, and moderation ( self control ) . A professional life by these four virtuousnesss will hold sufficient cognition and apprehension of their peculiar country to pattern it, will hold a thorough apprehension of his/her responsibilities with respects to justness and how it should be executed, will hold the bravery to make the right thing under any circumstance, and will hold adequate ego control to defy the negative enticements of mundane life. If these four cardinal virtuousnesss are used as a templet for virtuousness moralss, t he place can be used to measure whether a individual is moving within the confines of this peculiar school of idea. Different accounting and scrutinizing standard compositors and fiscal regulators around the universe effort to supply the fairest and most ethically sound criterions that they perchance can. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ( AICPA ) , Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ( PCAOB ) , and the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASC ) are a few illustrations of such organisations. The AICPA develops auditing criterions for private companies in the United States. The SEC is a federal organic structure that enforces federal securities Torahs and regulates stock exchanges and public companies the United States. The PCAOB is standard compositor created straight under the SEC s umbrella that oversees U.S. public company auditing criterions. Finally, the IASC efforts to make a standard set of accounting rules that can be used by states worldwide in an attempt to advance comparing in an increasing p lanetary concern scene. Though these four regulating organic structures strive to supply the most ethical counsel possible, they follow no peculiar school of idea. When taking the four antecedently mentioned schools of idea into consideration, one can see possible similarities and differences with each regulating organic structure s set of rules. The undermentioned subdivisions of this paper discuss in depth each ethical school of idea s possible influence on each of the several government organic structures. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ( AICPA ) provides its meembers with ethical counsel through its Code of Professional Conduct and Ethical motives Decision Tree . The Professional Ethics Executive Committee ( PEEC ) is in charge of interpreting and implementing the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct ( AICPA, 2010 ) . The PEEC besides facilitates the procedure of deliberation that takes topographic point for new moralss criterions, which includes deriving input from the populace. In add-on to these beginnings, the AICPA has an moralss hotline that members may name when they are faced with an ethical quandary. While these resources do supply counsel for members sing their professional duties, the AICPA is sometimes criticized for non offering a model to assist with ethical inquiries that autumn outside of the regulations of the Code of Professional Conduct. ( AICPA, 2010 ) The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct offers aid for doing ethical determinations every bit good as regulations for the profession that all members must follow including those in public accounting, industry, authorities, and instruction. There are two subdivisions of the Code. The first subdivision, the Principles, are the foundation upon which the 2nd subdivision, the regulations, are built. The Principles set up a model for what is considered ethical behaviour for members of the AICPA. The regulations are more specific and set up how professional services should be performed. The Professional Code of Conduct besides includes readings of the regulations which clarify the range of the regulations and how they are to be applied, and moralss opinions, which are official opinions of the PEEC on the application of regulations to specific state of affairss. ( AICPA, 2010 ) The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct Principles are unity, objectiveness, independency, and due attention. Harmonizing to the AICPA unity involves honestness, confidentiality, service to the populace, seting self-interest last, and adhering to accounting rules. Harmonizing to the codification, unity is measured in footings of what is right and merely ( AICPA, 2010 ) . Objectivity and independency go manus in manus to guarantee nonpartisanship, honestness, and freedom from struggles of involvement. In order to be independent members must avoid relationships that cut down objectiveness every bit good as 1s that appear to make so. Due attention is the quest for excellence ( AICPA, 2010 ) . It is comprised of competency and diligence in the members professional work. Competence requires the degree of instruction and experience connected with being a certified public comptroller. Diligence requires members to ever make their best and work for their clients involvements while keepi ng their duty to the populace. The regulations are based on these rules and like all regulations give more specific counsel. The Ethics Decision Tree was designed to assist members of the AICPA navigate through ethical quandary that the regulations do non talk to straight. The thought behind the determination tree is sound because there is no manner to hold regulations to turn to every ethical state of affairs. However, the AIPCA s determination tree fails to supply much counsel to its members. The determination tree advises members to follow a company s moralss policy and speak to directors, the moralss commission, the audit commission, and the board of managers until a satisfactory ethical determination is made. If a satisfactory determination can non be reached the member is advised to vacate. While speaking to higher degrees of direction and following company ethical guidelines are wise things to make in an ethical quandary, this determination tree does non supply an existent model for doing ethical determinations. It advises members to speak to higher-ups, but non how to measure whether that higher- up s determination is ethical. Often AICPA members do non necessitate to utilize a determination tree because the issue they are confronting is straight addressed in the regulations. While the regulations do forestall the kind of ethical quandary that the determination tree is supposed to turn to, it might ensue in being every bit bad as the regulations allow ( Anderson ) . In order to avoid this outlook and supply an existent determination tree for ethical quandary, the AICPA must set up a model for ethical determination devising. One could reason that the AICPA really has this model wrapped up in the Principles subdivision of their Code of Professional Conduct. However, as evidenced by the determination tree, the organisation has non to the full recognized these Principles ability to be the needful model. The determination tree and even the regulations to a certain extent tend to sabotage the model established by the rules. Egoism vs. AICPA By comparing the rules established in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct with the different schools of ethical thought one can analyse whether or non a sufficient model exists. The rules have similarities with all of the chief schools of ethical idea except for egoism. The egoist school of idea is based on the thought that there is merely one virtuousness, selfishness. Egotists believe that the lone manner to move ethically is to move in their ain ego involvement regardless of the consequence it has on others. This does non fit up with the rules in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. The rules are based on the thought that the professional comptroller has a responsibility to the populace, clients, and co-workers that supersedes opportunism. Harmonizing to the Professional Code of Conduct, the rules call for an undeviating committedness to honest behaviour, even at the forfeit of personal advantage ( AICPA, 2010 ) . This is the exact antonym of what person with an egocentric model would see ethical. Utilitarianism vs. AICPA The ethical school of idea of utilitarianism is based on the thought that one should make whatever is best for society as a whole. Supplying the greatest good for the greatest figure of people is the cardinal end of utilitarianism. This thought is cardinal to the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct every bit good. The rules that are intended to steer members actions are based on the thought that a professional comptroller has a responsibility to the populace, or society as a whole. These rules and utilitarianism are endeavoring for the same terminals. Harmonizing to the Code of Professional Conduct, trust imposes a public involvement duty on certified public comptrollers. The public involvement is defined as the corporate wellbeing of the community of people and establishments the profession serves ( AICPA, 2010 ) . Deontology vs. AICPA The ethical school of idea deontology is based on the thought that one should neer handle a individual as a agency to an terminal. Deontology is all about esteeming people and holding the right purposes, non merely the right result. Harmonizing to the Code of Professional Conduct, unity requires a member to detect both the signifier and the spirit of proficient and ethical criterions ( AICPA, 2010 ) . This thought of following the spirit of a criterion and non merely the signifier requires members to hold the right purposes when using criterions. It prevents the be every bit bad as the regulations allow ( Anderson ) outlook. The focal point on staying free from struggles of involvement expressed in the rules of objectiveness and independency besides serves to guarantee that members have the right purposes. The AICPA rules focus on a members responsibility to the populace instead than esteeming the populace merely because they are fellow human existences, but the terminal consequ ence is within the deontological position ; the populace is treated as an terminal non a agencies. Virtue Ethics vs. AICPA The virtuousness moralss school of idea claims that virtuous people do virtuous things. Therefore the focal point is on moving morally instead than on the effects of one s actions. Like virtuousness moralss, the Code of Professional Conduct focuses on the thought of a individual endeavoring to be virtuous. In the absence of specific regulations, criterions, or counsel, or in the face of conflicting sentiments, a member should prove determinations and workss by inquiring, Am I making what a individual of unity would make? Have I retained my unity? ( AICPA, 2010 ) . The chief job with virtuousness moralss is that what is considered ethical depends on how virtuousness is defined. Different definitions of virtuousness could take to really different actions being considered ethical. Aristotle, the laminitis of virtuousness moralss, believed that there were four central virtuousnesss: wisdom, justness, bravery, and self control. The rules in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct fit up with Aristotle s four central virtuousnesss. Accountants are required to hold wisdom in the theory and pattern of accounting, which is a chief focal point of the rule due attention. Professional comptrollers besides have a responsibility to the populace to supply justness. The rules discuss avoiding subordination of judgement which requires bravery, and self control, which is of import for the comptroller to keep unity, objectiveness, and independency. By specifying the rules as virtuousnesss the virtuousness moralss school of idea could be easy adopted by the AICPA. When comparing these different schools of ethical idea to the rules in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct it is easy to see that they could supply a model for ethical determination devising. If the AICPA were to farther explicate the rules and advance them as a agency for ethical determination doing it may turn out to be a more helpful model than elaborate regulations or determination trees. The Securities and Exchange Commission Egoism vs. SEC Egoism trades chiefly with a party moving entirely in their ain opportunism. The party s opportunism may harm, profit, or have no consequence on the involvements of other parties ( Wiki, 2010 ) . Within the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federals Torahs are implemented and regulations and ordinances are instituted that trade with proper behaviour for professionals. These professionals can dwell of comptrollers, investing companies, and investing advisers. Overall the SEC protects investor involvements and wants to keep their unity, which means they are chiefly concerned with ethical issues. In add-on, the SEC has the duty of O.K.ing federal security Torahs that are set by the SRO ( self-regulatory organisation ) . When the SEC trades with ethical quandary it uses an attack that is non similar egoism, an ever-present construct in today s capitalist society. Rather, the SEC assumes parties are seeking to be honorable and selfless. Specifically, the SEC believes the parties involve d should alternatively of moving in their ain opportunism, act in a manner to assist function others. The moral party should experience slightly obligated to make this, which contrasts with egoism. Egoism concerns selfish motives, while selflessness concerns the antonym. The SEC and the overall fiscal environment privation to exchange the capitalistic society to a more bureau relationship mentality. The displacement has been called the paradigm displacement, which consists of analyzing the rational-maximizer premise that is the current implicit in theory and contradict the thought that self-interest should be a party s motive. Alternatively, this fiscal environment now believes in a higher grade of ethical and selfless actions. This means focal point would be on the principal-agency relationship ( which selflessness agrees with ) . Specifically there would be trust, honestness, and trueness between the principal and the agent ( Enotes, 2010 ) . Again, this is wholly different from egoism s selfish position point. For case, the principal may be an comptroller who audits a company and harmonizing to the SEC, this comptroller should move with the honestness and effort to function their client, or agent. This differs from egoism, which would be okay with the principal moving in their ain opportunism to increase their net income border alternatively of moving to function their agent to the best of their ability. The principal would non be able to move with trueness and honestness towards their agent if they are merely looking out for themselves and seeking to increase their bottom line. However, there is one similarity between egoism and selflessness which should be mentioned and that is they both trade with an agent focal point, intending they are capable focal point signifiers of consequentialism ( Wiki, 2010 ) . Taekwondo: Korean Martial Arts EssayVirtue Ethics vs. PCAOB The focal point of the virtuousness moralss doctrine is on one s moral behaviour and character ( Wiki, 2010 ) . This is similar to the PCAOB independency regulation where hearers must be independent in both fact and visual aspect. The application of this standard focuses on the hearer s being and individuality. However, virtue moralss differs from the PCAOB in that it does non use regulations or criterions which are focused on an hearer s actions ; it is based on one s features like compassion and equity ( Wiki, 2010 ) . The PCAOB requires hearers to carry on concern reasonably ; nevertheless, it is non indispensable that the hearers themselves are just people in all facets, instead the PCAOB is more concerned with the hearers using equity to the audit of public companies. Virtue moralss is about ground and logical picks ; hearers are invariably doing opinion calls and the PCAOB s criterions assist steer hearers using ground and logic to do the right determinations. The PCAOB offers those in the scrutinizing profession guidelines on the manner hearers are required to carry on the audits of public companies through their criterions and codifications of professional behavior. The ethical system is written and enforced by scrutinizing professionals themselves to show the ideals and values of their corporations and profession ; nevertheless, merely like any other ethical position, it is finally up to the single whether or non to move ethically or unethically ( Hinman, 2002 ) . The PCAOB is an ethical system made up and enforced by regulations whereas the philosophical moralss systems are different ways at sing a state of affairs and make up ones minding harmonizing to those set of beliefs if something is right or incorrect. There will be effects to all determinations but the other ethical systems do non hold a organic structure implementing those effects or doing alterations to their ethical system s beliefs. The PCAOB will invariably alter as socie ty alterations, society will impact the ethical criterions that the PCAOB seeks to implement and the PCAOB will hold its effects on the market which will impact society every bit good in the long tally. Therefore, the PCAOB s accounting ethical criterions are of all time altering and will go on to alter whereas the other philosophical ethical criterions have remained fundamentally the same for 100s of old ages and will likely go on to stay changeless. The International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation Egoism vs. IASC Egoism grounds its ethical place in that moral agents ought to make what is in their opportunism, ( Ethical Egoism, para.1 ) . At first glimpse of the aims in the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation s Fundamental law it appears that the International Accounting Standards Board is non grounded in the egoist school of idea. The four aims listed in the Fundamental law are to develop, in the public involvement, a individual set of high quality, apprehensible, enforceable and globally accepted fiscal coverage criterions based upon clearly articulated rules, to advance the usage and strict application of those criterions, in carry throughing the old aims to take history of the demands of a scope of sizes and types of entities in diverse economic scenes, and to advance and ease acceptance of International Financial Reporting Standards, being the criterions and readings issued by the IASB, through the convergence of national accounting criterions and IFRS ( IASC Foundat ion, 2010, p.5 ) . These aims do propose that the criterions created by the IASB are held to the highest of criterions and that the incorporate and consistent application of them could convey benefits to fiscal information users. However, the inquiry exists on whether the publicity of these criterions is in the involvement of all users of IFRS, or a choice few states or parts of the Earth. Through naming 22 legal guardians to the IASC Foundation, the Foundation has attempted to make a administration organic structure that is globally diverse and indifferent. Within the IASC Foundation Constitution they have set the demand of six Trustees coming from each Asia, Europe, and North America and so one Trustee coming from each Africa and South America. There are besides two Trustees appointed from any country, capable to keeping overall geographical balance ( IASC Foundation, 2010, p.6 ) . Although at that place seems to be an attempt from the IASC Foundation to make a regulating organic structure that is diverse plenty to get the better of opportunism, their inability to more every bit affect Africa and South America suggests the opportunism of the other three continents can more easy be promoted with uneven representation. Besides, within each continent s legal guardians there is besides uneven representation from states. Eastern Europe presently has no representatives wit hin the board of legal guardians, North America s representation is chiefly from the United States and Canada, and the People s Republic of China and Japan dominate the Asiatic slots for legal guardians. ( IASB, The Organization: Trustees ) . Since the IASC Foundation is comparatively immature in comparing to many accounting standard formation organic structures around the universe, it is hard to find whether the unrepresented planetary parts will either be provided a place in the Trustee administration organic structure, or if they will hold to follow International Financial Reporting Standards and follow the positions of the current Trustee organic structure. The way that is selected will further bespeak whether the IASC Foundation has genuinely had the purpose of moving in their opportunism or supplying a unvarying set of criterions to the universe that incorporate a genuinely planetary position. Utilitarianism vs. IASC Utilitarianism bases its moral model around finding the moral worth of an action by its result ( Utilitarianism ) . The IASC Foundation states that they have adopted a set of policies and counsel statements that are designed to guarantee that the organisation operates in a manner that meets or exceeds the demands of public involvement, meets all legal demands, and has an overall good impact on the environment, ( IASB, The Organization: IASC Foundation Policies, para.1 ) . This suggests that the Foundation has adopted an ethical model that serves to convey every bit much benefit as possible to the populace and the environment. The Due Process Oversight Committee of the IASC which consists of five to seven legal guardians besides applies a useful procedure. This commission has the specific duty of reexamining the inadvertence map the Trustees have been mandated to execute through the Constitution of the Foundation ( IASB, The Organization: Due procedure inadvertence, para.1 ) . This Due Process Oversight Committee specifically develops proposals and measurement marks, proctors the accomplishment of those marks and alerts the Trustees when marks are non being met, ( IASB, The Organization: Due procedure inadvertence, para.2 ) . This measuring procedure performed by the Due Process Oversight Committee shows the concern the IASC Foundation has over the effectivity of their Trustee public presentation in regulating the IASB s standard scene processs. Deontology vs. IASC The standard puting map of the International Accounting Standards Board and the IFRS Interpretations Committee follow a deontological model. Deontology is an attack to moralss that Judgess the morality of an action based on the action s attachment to a regulation or regulations ( Deontological Ethics, para.1 ) . Although the IASB and the IFRS Interpretations Committee execute different functions in the standard creative activity and puting procedure, they both follow similar and specific procedures. The IASB holds all their meetings in public, and they follow an unfastened and crystalline due procedure that publishes advisory paperss for public remark. Like the IASB the IFRS Interpretations Committee besides holds public meetings, and they must besides follow an unfastened due procedure ( IASB, The Organization: About the IASC Foundation and the IASB, para 3 A ; 4 ) . The Trustees of the IASC have besides created a Monitoring Board. This board has been given the primary duty to guarantee that the Trustees discharge their responsibilities as defined by the IASC Foundation Constitution, and they approve the assignment or reappointment of Trustees ( IASB, Governance and answerability: Monitoring Board, parity. 3 ) . The Monitoring Board is presently composed of securities regulators of Europe, Japan, the United States, and the Emerging Markets and Technical Committees of the International Organization of Securities Commissions ( IASB, Governance and answerability: Monitoring Board, parity. 2 ) . The Monitoring Board gives securities regulators that allow or require the usage of IFRS in their legal powers the ability to transport out their authorizations sing investor protection, market unity, and capital formation ( IASB, Governance and answerability: Monitoring Board, parity. 2 ) . The formation of this board shows how the attack taken by the IASC Foundation is critical to their credibleness, and that without procedures being suitably completed, they can non guarantee the dependability of their criterions. By making a board that is composed of securities regulators external to the IASC Foundation, they have finally created greater credibleness to their standard scene procedure. The Due Process Oversight Committee has been created to supervise Trustee fulfilment of their inadvertence map. Although this Committee is focused on guaranting procedures are successfully completed, measurement marks are its primary concern and is more useful in nature. Virtue Ethics vs. IASC Harmonizing to Aristotle, wisdom, justness, bravery, and moderation are features of virtuousness. Using Aristotle s features the IASC Foundation can be identified as holding some resemblance of practising virtuousness moralss. Use of virtuousness moralss as the IASC Foundation s ethical model can be seen in their funding construction, choice of legal guardians, and formation of the IASB. The IASC Foundation gives the duty to their Trustees to form and O.K. the appropriate funding for the Foundation. The IASC Foundation provinces that their end is to prosecute all interested parties throughout the universe in the defining of coverage criterions, and their funding should guarantee independency and objectiveness of the standard-setting procedure ( IASB, Governance and answerability: Financing, parity. 2 ) . This desire to finance the foundation while keeping independency and objectiveness shows that the IASC Foundation wants to be merely in their standard making procedure, and that they desire to make moderation in organizing criterions to profit all. The Trustees funding attempts are guided by four rules. These rules are to be broad-based, compelling, open-ended, and legal power particular ( IASB, Governance and answerability: Financing, para.4 ) . Their end to hold funding come from a broad-base of participants in the universe market and to hold the support load be s hared by the major economic systems on a proportionate footing shows the Foundation s desire for a merely support system to be in order. The rule of open-ended funding is to guarantee funding is non contingent on actions or state of affairss so that the Foundation can keep their independency. This open-ended funding is a manner for the Foundation to exert moderation. The rule of funding being compelling is to promote donees of the IASC Foundation to supply support. This rule requires the Trustees to utilize their wisdom to prosecute market participants to supply support. The choice of legal guardians and formation of the IASB shows the how the IASC Foundation desires to make an organisation of virtuous persons. To be a Trustee of the IASC Foundation, it is outlined in their Fundamental law that a Trustee must demo a committedness to the IFRS Foundation and IASB, be financially knowing, and show an apprehension of challenges associated with the acceptance of planetary accounting criterions ( IASC Foundation, 2010, p.6 ) . Furthermore the mix of Trustees should be a wide contemplation of the universe s capital markets and professional backgrounds, and they are required to perpetrate themselves officially to move in the public involvement in all affairs ( IASC Foundation, 2010, p.6 ) . These demands set out by the IASC Foundation require their Trustees to hold wisdom gained from their planetary and professional backgrounds. Besides, through being required to see the impact and challenges of planetary accounting criterions and publically perpetrating the mselves to move in the public involvement they are demoing the bravery to move rightly and for the benefit of others. Like Trustees, the International Accounting Standards Board members are required by the IASC Foundation Constitution to keep certain qualities. The Constitution requires the IASB members to hold proficient expertness, diverseness of international concern and market experience, and must officially perpetrate themselves to move in the public involvement in all affairs ( IASC Foundation, 2010, p.11-12 ) . The demand of holding to be a proficient expert with diverse market experience shows the desire for the IASB to hold wisdom as they create international accounting criterions. Besides by officially saying they are moving in the public involvement, they are being brave, claiming to be merely, and claiming to exert moderation as they create accounting criterions. Although the IASC Foundation demands their Trustees and the IASB to be virtuous, their deficiency of scope in diverseness of representation from assorted parts of the Earth may impede the coveted degree of wisdom practiced, justness provided to certain planetary parts, and moderation exercised. Besides since funding is the duty of the Trustees, the desire for the fundraising procedure to be virtuous may besides be impacted due to the deficiency of diverseness of representation from peculiar universe parts. Decision In decision, it is clear that accounting standard compositors and fiscal regulators have borrowed basic thoughts and constructs from different schools of idea to steer their organisations and create criterions. Most normally, thoughts seem to fall in line with utilitarianism, deontology, and virtuousness moralss. In the spirit of utilitarianism, the AICPA, SEC, PCAOB, and IASC appear to supply guidelines that give the greatest benefit to the greatest sum of people. However, in contrast to utilitarianism and more in line with deontology, these organisations are to boot concerned with the agencies of their Acts of the Apostless and non merely the results. With respects to virtue moralss, the four organisations are surely concerned with the moral character of their members and anticipate them to hold the cognition and apprehension to pattern their profession, a strong construct of justness, the bravery to ever make the right thing, and the ego control to defy negative or self-motivated enticements. These organisations about universally reject the egoist constructs of opportunism and deficiency of concern for others. However, if these organisations are put under a microscope and studied more closely, this does non needfully look to be so. Though the IASC would openly reject any accusals of opportunism, the disproportional representation of cardinal universe parts gives an air of opportunism that can non be denied. In order to be the most effectual and maintain credibleness, these organisations will necessitate to take an introverted expression to guarantee that they are genuinely providing criterions and guidelines that benefit the full populace and non merely a few choice groups of people.