| Course | PSY 650 Ethics |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Ethical theory paper |
| Length | About 1,041 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSY 650 Module 1
Four Questions Before Saying Yes: Ethical Theory Applied to a Small-Town Referral
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PSY 650: Ethics
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Four Questions Before Saying Yes: Ethical Theory Applied to a Small-Town Referral
Hannah is a licensed professional counselor in a three-person group practice in a Montana town of about eight thousand people. She, the practice and the people described here are invented for this course. In October, a woman named Carla called the practice asking to see Hannah specifically, for anxiety following a divorce. Carla coaches the youth soccer team on which Hannah's ten-year-old son plays; Hannah sees her twice a week at practices and games. Hannah's colleagues are full, and the nearest other counselor is forty minutes away. This paper uses four ethical approaches to think through whether Hannah should accept Carla as a client.
Consequentialism
Consequentialist theories judge actions by their outcomes. Beauchamp and Childress (2019) describe utilitarianism, the best-known form, as judging an act right when, among the options open, it yields more good and less harm across everyone touched by it than any alternative would. A consequentialist would ask Hannah to weigh the likely results of each choice. Accepting Carla offers prompt, convenient help but risks harm if the overlapping relationship distorts treatment, embarrasses Carla at the soccer field or complicates Hannah's son's place on the team. Referring her elsewhere avoids those harms but may mean Carla waits longer or travels farther, or does not go at all.
Deontology
Deontological theories hold that some actions are right or wrong in themselves, because they fulfill or violate duties, regardless of their results. Beauchamp and Childress trace this tradition to Kant, who held that people may never be used simply as tools for someone else's purposes, however worthy. A deontologist would ask what duties Hannah owes: to provide competent, objective care, to keep promises such as confidentiality and to avoid relationships that could exploit or impair judgment. On this view, the question is less what will turn out best than whether Hannah can honor her duties to Carla while also being her son's team parent.
Principle-Based Ethics
Beauchamp and Childress (2019) developed an approach for professional ethics that does not require agreement on a single theory. They proposed four principles that people starting from different theories can accept: respect for autonomy, honoring people's capacity to make their own choices; nonmaleficence, avoiding harm; beneficence, acting for others' good; and justice, distributing benefits and burdens fairly. The principles are weighed against each other in particular cases rather than ranked. For Hannah, respect for autonomy supports Carla's choice of counselor; beneficence supports helping her promptly; nonmaleficence warns against a relationship that might harm her; and justice raises the question of access in a town with few counselors.
Virtue Ethics
Meara et al. (1996) argued that principles alone are not enough. Principles tell professionals what to consider, but virtues, traits of character such as prudence, integrity, respectfulness and benevolence, shape what professionals notice, how they weigh competing claims and whether they act well when no rule applies. The authors proposed that professional ethics should join principle ethics, which asks what I should do, with virtue ethics, which asks who I should be. Jordan and Meara (1990) made a similar case earlier, arguing that much of professional conduct occurs in situations codes do not anticipate and depends on the practitioner's character. A virtue approach would ask what a prudent, honest and caring counselor would do in Hannah's position.
Comparing the Approaches
| Approach | Central question | What Hannah must weigh | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consequentialism | Which choice produces the best overall results? | Prompt help versus risks from the overlapping relationship | Outcomes are uncertain; may overlook rights |
| Deontology | Which choice fulfills my duties? | Duties of objectivity, confidentiality and avoiding exploitation | Duties can conflict, with no rule for choosing |
| Principles | How do autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice balance here? | Carla's choice, risk of harm, her good and access | Weighing requires judgment the principles do not supply |
| Virtue | How would a prudent, honest and caring counselor act here? | Prudence, honesty, care for Carla and for her own family | Less specific guidance for action |
Applying the Approaches
The approaches partly converge. Each recognizes that the overlapping relationship carries real risk: to Carla's treatment, to her privacy at the field and to Hannah's objectivity if, for example, a conflict arose about her son's playing time. They differ on how much weight to give Carla's preference and the scarcity of local services. A prudent counselor, in Meara and colleagues' sense, would take both seriously.
Hannah called Carla back, explained honestly that because of their contact through soccer she was concerned she could not offer the objectivity and privacy Carla deserved, and offered two alternatives: a colleague in the next town who offered evening telehealth sessions, or, if Carla preferred, a first meeting with Hannah to discuss options. Carla chose the colleague. Hannah also decided how she would act at games: as a soccer parent only, never raising the call, and leaving it to Carla whether to mention it.
Where the Theories Disagree
The approaches part ways on Carla's preference. A strongly autonomy-focused reading of principle ethics might say Carla, an adult, may choose her counselor and Hannah should respect that choice unless the risks are severe. A duty-focused reading might say Hannah's duty of objectivity comes first regardless of Carla's wishes. A consequentialist would want to know more about the likely harms on each side, such as whether Carla would actually travel forty minutes. The disagreement is useful: it shows Hannah that the decision is not obvious and that she should explain her reasons to Carla rather than simply decline.
Why Professions Combine Theories
Professional codes draw on several traditions at once. Their standards often read as duties, their principles echo Beauchamp and Childress and their aspirations describe virtues. The combination suits practice, where rules cannot anticipate every situation and good character must fill the gaps. Hannah's case illustrates this: no rule forbade seeing Carla, but each approach helped her see what was at stake.
Conclusion
Consequentialism, deontology, principle-based ethics and virtue ethics each ask a different question about Hannah's dilemma. Beauchamp and Childress's principles offer common ground across theories, and Meara, Schmidt and Day and Jordan and Meara argue that principles must be joined with virtues. Applied together, the approaches led Hannah to an honest referral that respected Carla's choice while protecting her care.
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Jordan, A. E., & Meara, N. M. (1990). Ethics and the professional practice of psychologists: The role of virtues and principles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(2), 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.21.2.107
Meara, N. M., Schmidt, L. D., & Day, J. D. (1996). Principles and virtues: A foundation for ethical decisions, policies, and character. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(1), 4-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000096241002
Reading the PSY 650 Module 1 assignment instructions
The first module of PSY 650 usually asks for a paper on the philosophical foundations of ethics, often applied to a dilemma. Your Aspen course's Module 1 page sets the requirements; the counselor and clients here are invented. Explain the major ethical theories accurately, including consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics, in enough depth to show how each reasons. Describe principle-based ethics and why professions use it. Compare the theories on what they ask the decision maker to consider. Apply each to the same dilemma to show how they differ. Argue for an approach suited to professional practice. Give full APA 7 references, including editions of books. Where theories agree, say so; convergence is often the strongest reason for confidence in a decision.
Inside the PSY 650 Module 1 example
Hannah, a composite counselor in a small Montana town, is asked to see Carla, who coaches Hannah's son's soccer team. Beauchamp and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics supplies the summaries of consequentialism and deontology and the four principles of respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. Meara, Schmidt and Day's Counseling Psychologist article argues for joining principles and virtues. Jordan and Meara's Professional Psychology article explains virtue in practice. A four-row table compares the approaches. Each is applied to Hannah's decision, which ends with a referral to a colleague in the next town and a plan for meeting Carla at games. A short section explains why professional codes borrow from several theories at once.
Reading the PSY 650 Module 1 grading rubric
Ethical theory papers earn credit for accurate summaries, fair comparison and application that shows theories leading to different considerations. This example explains each theory in plain terms without caricature. The table compares what each asks the decision maker to weigh. Applying all four to one dilemma shows how they converge and where they part. The argument for combining principles with virtues is supported by sources. The decision is reasoned rather than asserted, and it attends to practical details such as how Hannah will behave at the next soccer game. The paper also recognizes the cost of referral in a town with few counselors, which keeps the analysis honest.
PSY 650 Module 1 help from the desk
Ethical theory papers often define theories in a sentence each and move on. Explain each well enough to show how it reasons. Avoid caricatures, such as consequentialism justifying anything or deontology ignoring results. Apply every theory to the same case. Show where theories agree as well as where they differ. Connect theory to the profession's codes, which draw on several traditions. Keep the dilemma realistic; small communities create overlapping relationships that no counselor can avoid entirely, and an answer that assumes otherwise will not convince a reader who has practiced there. State the theory you find most persuasive and why, rather than presenting all four as equally useful.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PSY 650 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PSY 650 Module 2: Ethical Principles in Psychology
- PSY 650 Module 3: Professional Codes of Ethics
- PSY 650 Module 4: Confidentiality and Privacy
- PSY 650 Module 5: Informed Consent and Competence
- PSY 650 Module 6: Multiple Relationships and Boundaries
- PSY 650 Module 7: Research Ethics
- PSY 650 Module 8: Ethical Decision Making in Practice
- ADC 605 Module 5: Family and Community Prevention
- PAC 414 Module 4: Parental Substance Use and Child Maltreatment
- PAC 230 Module 4: Pain and Its Management
- PAC 610 Module 7: Side Effects, Interactions and Adherence
PSY 650 Module 1 questions, answered
What does PSY 650 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's PSY 650 opens with the philosophical foundations of ethics, so a paper explaining major theories and applying them to a dilemma is typical. Look at your Module 1 prompt.
What is the difference between consequentialism and deontology?
Consequentialism judges actions by their outcomes; deontology judges them by whether they fulfill duties or respect rights, regardless of outcome.
What is principle-based ethics?
An approach, developed by Beauchamp and Childress, using shared principles such as respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice to guide decisions.
Where can I find a free PSY 650 Module 1 sample paper?
The whole paper is here: four ethical traditions, side by side, each tested on a small-town counselor's dilemma.
What is virtue ethics in psychology?
An approach focused on the character of the professional, such as prudence, integrity and respectfulness, which Meara, Schmidt and Day argue should complement principles.