How are philosophical ethics different from professional ethics?
In philosophy there is the effort to tell other people how to behave properly on the basis of pure ideas. Results of actions are emphasized by consequentialists whereas an ultimate sense of right and wrong action is emphasized by deontologists. If you talk in this depth at a social gathering you will probably impress people but they may have difficulty liking you, particularly if the discussion becomes serious and you prove their beliefs are inconsistent. None of these fine points seems to matter much in professional ethics. The emphasis is on verbally negotiating boundary disputes about who is entitled or qualified to do what sort of work. This is an effort to tell other people how to behave properly on the basis of professional power. Surely, having a good argument is the best way to arrive at the truth? We appear to live in an adversarial society where the practice of staging debates limits our thinking in bad ways. At present there is acceptance for the debating strategy of evading
