Acceso usuarios
Dale Horniachek
Amernic and Craig (2004) propose the impossibility of anything other than a binary divide between moral absolutism and relativism. Campbell (1992) is drawn on to support this; however, it is revealed here that it cannot be used in this way. While Amernic and Craig leave the arguments as to the inevitability of this binary divide at this juncture, their discussion of the possibilities for accounting education reform offers the prospect of an alternative to relativism that avoids moral absolutism. More fortunately, Campbell's book provides the theoretical arguments necessary to rebut both absolutism and relativism. This rejoinder observes that, in reviewing the history of accounting, Amernic and Craig drew heavily on the work of Raymond Chambers, a critic of current accounting practice. In many works he demonstrated its failure to produce data comparability when complying with current accounting standards to report the values of assets, debts and income. For Chambers, truth in accounting (and ultimately data comparability) is found by the rigorous application of scientific rules. Introducing students to his persuasive arguments would be a very effective way of helping them understand the fragile and disputed nature of truth in accounting. But students should also be introduced to the arguments of those such as Gaffiikin, who believe there are limits to the extent that accounting can be based on objective facts (2000). To allow them simply to accept the orthodoxy of the day not only fails to prepare their minds (Clarke, 1996), it also allows relativism into our classrooms. Students who can grapple with truth in accounting can then start addressing ethical truth. We must take our students beyond professional rules of conduct. A goal outlined in the article should be to teach them to treat the readers of financial statements with, as Campbell puts it, ‘integrity and insight’ (p. 438).
