Can anyone explain this moral absolute concept to me? My basic understanding is that if you do anything that would make your clients have a lower opinion of your integrity or professionalism, than you have violated the “Moral absolute” principle. So, if I get drunk and do something embarassing outside of work, I have violated the moral absolute principle, even though I haven’t violated the standards. The standards now only consider your professional actions and not your personal actions I believe. Is this correct?
The standards only consider your professional actions and not personal UNLESS: your personal behaviour impacts your work (i.e you get drunk at lunch and come back to work). you committe fraud or money laundering on personal time for an activity not directly linked to work (so this would reflect poorly on your ability to be trusted with client assets)… stuff like that. Bascially you can have personal opinions, personal life, but if they interact with your work life or reflect poorly on your work life in some way, the standards govern that…
I recall Peter Olinto saying it’s ok if you get drunk at a party once in a while, but being drunk frequently would reflect badly on the profession. I also remember him saying that you can have derivatives on anything… including the price of cocaine, you just need to agree on how you’re going to measure it.