CIIAPTER 1 TOWARD AN AUDITING PHILOSOPHY HIS 1S AN ATTEMPT to outline the theory of auditing. To some this may appear an unlikely if not an impossible task; to others it may at best seem futile. Many think of auditing as a completely practical, as op- Posed to theoretical, subject. To them, auditing is a series of practices and procedures, methods and techniques, a way of doing with little need for the explanations, descriptions, lumped together as “theory.” It is our contention that there is a theory of auditing, that there exist a umber of basic assumptions and a body of integrated ideas, the under- standing of which will be of direct assistance in the development and prac- tice of the art of auditing, Further, it is our belief, which we will attempt to support in the following pages, that an understanding of auditing theory ca lead us to reasonable solutions of some of the most vexing problems facing auditors today. 5 Present Status of Auditing Theory. Cusrently, there is very little availa- ble in the professional literature that can be desctibed 2s auditing theory. Cectainly there is little in auditing literature to compare with the wealth of material one finds on accounting theory. On reflection, one sees some- thing incongruous in the existence of a professional group drawing its status primarily from the practice of auditing, but having no perceptible body of theory to support that practice. Considerable attention is given to accounting theory—indeed there are certain works which may appio- Priately be described as’ “classics”—but there has been little concern with auditing theory. It is this paradox which has encouraged us to iave: the possibility of an integrated body of auditing theory. To forestall the argument that discussions of auditing theory are Lick- ing because there is no such theory, let us hasten to point out that this lack is easily explained in the historical development of auditing, We do not contemplate a lengthy digression on the history of auditing, but a few illustrations can be cited which indicate that auditing developed as a pro cedure of detailed checking, in which theory seemed neither necessary nor desirable, and that only recently has it outgrown that stage. Auditing came into existence as the offspring of Jaw and custom with prescribed forms and procedures, + ++ They (the rolls) correspond, as required by the rule derived from: the ‘ L { teconciliations, and arguments so frequently gatePTT ming ar ea ey EMRRCRCURTEIS PYTNR ra ine abn ct aC Nepean ee eine nT I “ang tt THE PHILOSOPHY OF AUDITING ‘ Mortverpner, tak at avid Iral hy leaf, page to page, almost line to line. The “probatum,” the ' Hit, has been affixed to the sum of every page, and to the sum of every rato its arcond page, and in some cases, where the sum has been apparently swuestel by a second audit, w second mark is affixed to the finally stated sum. . * Nhu the early auditor was encouraged only to investigate correspond- wuce of the matter under investigation with a model or standard. This does wit difer a great deal (com the situation in Germany today, Woe legal requirements instead of Neve Alateiments,” dlicating © minimum standard of diseloeure, to he accepted ae “the standard fot the presentation of published Mee iv little in the task of checking conformity with a given standard ut tequucntent that leads one to question the natur? of the auditor's funda. mental purposes, limitations, and activity. As recently as 1942, a commit. tee of Tuylish experts, in discussing the future ‘of auditing in Britain, wrote, somewhat intemperately: Atiempts to persuade the accountancy profession to take a wider view of their tulilic responsibilities have so far met with little success... there is Little o wilence during the last twenty or twenty-five years to show that p> fessional accountant, qua professional accountant, has produced « single idea of valun tu industry or the State. He has merely ticked and cast and trusted ia God.! Nile way written almost ten years after Carr-Saunders, in a study of the various professions in England, had criticized the professional groups tailwr arverely for a lack of attention to theoretical study and reseacch. 1 Ie diffiult to avoid the inference that the want of proper facilities for theo Wlital training is in part responsible for the scanty interest displayed by ac- nis in the study of their craft. One of the advocates of educational reform m we have already quoted would extend his proposals to cover a wider here is a teal need,” he urges, “in accountancy, for sustained academic Mtuuly and research... . But so far as I am awsce, the Institute and Society kave tut illtectly concerned themselves with academic study of accountancy of research - In the United States, auditing has not been subjected to the type of in- Hence which the Companies Act could scarcely do otherwise than exert “Ab barl Mrown, A History of Accounting and Accountants (Edinburgh: T. C. '. Jack, 1905), p. 73. . Wilfried Petce Holzer, Corporate Financial Statements in Germany Consratted HUA Amertian Practice, M. S, Thesis (University of linois, Urbana, 1936),.p. 2 "Che Mutue of Auditing,” Anonymous, The Accountant, Volume 106, January Wh fds, pe St. . if! Ad, rat ‘Saunders and P, A. Wilson, The Professions (Oxford, England: Olalucl Molvecsity Press, 1933), pp. 225-226.TOWARD AN AUDITING PHILOSOPHY in England, As American practice developed and diferent itis and more from its British counterpart, an interest in matters of & yy retical nature appeared. For many years practicing auditdts have empha. sized the reasons for the use of various procedures as well a; the steps in the procedures themselves, the "why" as well at the “how"aas it) often described. And this is indeed a beginning for a discussion of audit. ing theory. More than this is nee wever, and more has been forth- * coming. In recent years, bits and pieces of auuiting theory have appeared in the professional literature. The differentiation of techniques, procedures, aad principles, the recognition of standards, » the attention give nature and classification of “evidential matter,” and the evidential matter to audit techniques may be cited as illustrations, Unsolved Problems in Auditing. At the present time, auditing is plagued with a number of Perplexing problems involving a wide variety of sub- iects. For example, are the customary tests and samples on which the litor relies sufficient to justify his opinion? Here, i nized, he is dealing in probabilities, In the past we have considered the judgment of an experienced practitioner adequate; the new interest in the application of statistical sampling methods to auditing requices that we examine this assumption that experience per se sufficiently qualifies one to judge the adequacy of tests and samples. Perhaps we niust understand the laws of inference and probability theory a3 well. A question exists as to whether there is a minimum audit program required in every case and, if so, what it includes? How far in the direction of advocacy in tax work and in giving operating and financial advice through mani gement services can an independent auditor go without weakening his ind:pendence? But not only is the appropriate extent of the auditor's services a macter of some doubt, the extent of his responsibility in the performance of even his historical function is far from settled. Some contend that an inde- pendent auditor has a responsibility to disclose to his client and possibly to others any weaknesses in internal control which he discovers during his examination; some dispute this, The auditor's responsibility for the dis- covery of irregularities of various kinds has been the subject of several papers published within the last few years, This problem leads to the question of whether management inelficiencies and faulty judgments should be disclosed, a version of the “policy audit™ wit. overtones of dis- closure, . How far auditors are responsible for disclosing the limitations of tradi. tional types of financial reports during a period of substantial changes in general price levels is a question that has not yet rectived an adequate rust be recoz-THE PHILOSOPHY OF AUDITING » Uven the rel upon. Sho Huntiol oan he a a « tn sl eral Purpose of an auditor's verification tests is not uld it be to determine how far the system of internal trusted to produce reliable data, or is it to assure the audi- fer tha i Mat the amounts reported in the financial statements ace reasonable tl reliable in themselves? VN an imposing list of problems and unsettled areas, and with little nilit even more could be added. It is not our Purpose to suggest that ‘eliting has more than its share of unsolved problems. Similar perplexi- _ Hea encumber every field of knowledge, and auditing is neither better of tu worse off than many other professions, Nevertheless, there is cause lot concern, First, the existence of so many fundamental questions implies the alecuve of accepted principles which might serve as guides for their awuhutian, Second, the attitude of some practitioners toward solving certain NE thea peoblems is unfortunate indeed. Too many practicing auditors vera ta say, “It doesn't matter to me which way we decide these questions, [Mat a we get a firm decision and know where we stand.” Of cousse it imatlere bow such questions are handled, It matters immediately because seam syyyested solutions add to the burdens, responsibilities, or prestize of te auditur while others detract. But more important, it matters in the long 1, Mullen must be solved in such a way that the answers are compat: {aur at least reconcilable. Inconsistencies have no place in auditing in tha lung rung they may be unavoidable at the moment, but if we are to Ninve @ pualession worthy of the name we must work to eliminate them. Vhite tulitions which cannot be rationalized with one another Iead only tt aaltittonal problems. Without sheer luck, the only way in which problems such as these can He qatisfustorily and permanently solved is by appeal to certain basic ideas 4h h cyustitute the philosophy of the particular study, It is our firm belief thal (hw bite af theory now in the literature can be integrated and brought ~ INpelliee av parts of a comprehensive system. Once this system is outlined and slucktated it will provide a framework within which these and similar [Hellen canbe attacked in a rational and consistent manner. Once such - 4 Mey iv tated, if only in an elementary manner, its usefulness to practi- {itera ail the profession will become apparent. ‘Milt |4 ot to say that we propose to solve all the problems cited here Ap Mile belef volume, This is proposed as an introductory work only. Here {g Wliletlake wo more than an investigation into the possibility and nature “EAE Bul @ Mienry, Progress always comes slowly, and we will be content if 1. WEEN Md NO MOA than point the direction. AM wepate af Theory, One reason, then, for a scrious and substantial in-TOWARD AN AUDITING PHILOSOPHY 3 vestigation into the possibility and nature of auditing theory is the hope that it will provide us with solutions, or at least clues to the solutions, of problems which we sow find dificult. This is a satisfactory reason ia it- self, but there is another that is even more important, If auditing is a learned profession, those who practice it should have some curiosity about it, It may be too much to expect every practicing auditor, busy as he is with the problems of daily practice, to spend a great deal of time philos- ophizing about what he is doing and why it is socially desirable, But as 4 profession, its members must have sufficient intellectual curiosity to roll back the frontiers of knowledge to some extent. There should be an eager ness to uncover the basic “laws” that govern its organization and acti tics. As an organized body of knowledge there must be some thyme and reason to its system; there must be primary and secondary levels of knowl- edge; there must be relationships and interrelationships; there must be a reconciliation and rapport with other fields of knowledge. Our owa cusi- sity about our work should lead us to look into these things. Robinson, in discussing the riature of science, expresses it beautifully. is gcacially admitted that the capstone of the edifice of science is its the conditions of human life, so 23 to add to the enrichment of zation and “to illumine man’ le day,” nevertheless the real motive which spurs on the truc-hearted scientists is not practical but 2 burnicg curiosity to fad out the truth. There is nothing as irritating to a trve scientist #3 obscure aad opinionated thinking, He longs to sce everything as it actually is* One of the great thinkers of our times has expressed a similar thoug! ‘What, thea, impels us to devise theory after theory? Why do we devise theo at all? The answer to the latter question is simple: Because we enjoy “com prchension." . ... There is another more subtle motive, . . . This is the st: toward unification and simplification of the premises of the theory 2 a whole...” For years auditing has been so busy getting itself established and ac- cepted that it has had little time for such, inteospection. But as it becomes more and more mature, this excuse becomes less and less valid, Thete is indeed something incongruous about a profession with no visible support in the form of a comprehensive and integrated structure of theory: We need 4 philosophy of auditing. Philosophy and Auditing. Here some valid questions may be raised by those skeptical of such an effort as this, First, is auditing of such a nature “Daniel Sommer Robicson, The Principles of Reasoning (New York: Appleton: eae ae yy a it Eirstcin, we Generalized The itation,” Sciensi deat, Volume 182, No. 4\(Apri, 1930), pe ig) Ottalions” Scemtfc Amen® THE PHILOSOPHY OP AUDITING that itcan have of ought to have a philosophy? Second, what do we mean \ ‘y # philosophy of auditing? Third, are auditors qualified to erect their ® Philosophical stmcture, of is this something which only trained phil- phere sre competent to do? Dare we invade a field so foreign to our slaily activities; and even if we dace, have we ang real hope for success? Auwers to these questions requite at least @ brief examination of the natute of philosophy, the nature of auditing, and the possibility of ap. lying the methods, aims, and purpose of philosophy to auditing, Nefore this is attempted, however, it should be pointed out that other ateay of specialization have developed their own philosophies. As other lisiptives attained a degree of maturity, they too began to question theie Mice and nature and to look for philosophical guidance. Science, his- (ry, elucation, law, and others have developed special philesophies that are well recognized as acceptable contributions not only to the subject in suestinn but to the sum of philosophical understanding. Almost without exception these specialized philosophies have beea de- veloped primacily by experts within the fields themselves, As will become ayparent in our study of concepts of auditing in the latter part of this mwnograph, a broad knowledge of the special area of interest is essential If ous is to explore it as intensively as requized. Science has had pa:ticular tices in the development of its philosophy, a large portion of such suc- crus belng attributable to men like Poincaré about whom Bertrand Russell walter . Folueart's philosophical writings .. . are not those of a professional philoso- wt: they are the untrammeled reflections of a broad and cultivated mind upon {ia procedure and postulates of scientific discovery. The writing of professional Hhilwwsplers on such subjects has too often the deadness of merely external sit writing, on the coatary . . , has the freshness of actual |, intimate contact with what he is desc: . There results ilmess and rescnance in his words: the sound emitted is not hollow, fim a great mast of which ouly the polished surtice appears” Of course auditing has oot reached the advanced siage which many of he wlences have attained, Yet it has reached a stage of maturity at which N will do well to pause for a bit of intcospection and to take stock of its [Heanppenitions, aims, and methods. It is our hope that some of the “broad il cultivated minds” now active in our own citcles will be encouraged by Hilt work to consider aspects of auditing that have not yet been given sufhi- lent attention, Nye raen ‘Heitianl Russell, preface to Henri Poincart's Science and Method (New York: Ulailes Aetihiee's Sons), pp. 5-6.TOWARD AN AUDITING PHILOSOPHY Phenix gives us further encouragement here.* He poiats out three cl or grades of philosophers. First there are the philosophic peat “who have made major contributions to philosophy; second are, the pro fessional philosophers who have mastered the field and who generally write and teach on this subject; third, there are many intelligent and inquiring in- dividuals who are concerned with their problems, their goals, their rela tionships with others, and who scck through reflection and study to find solutions to these matters. Brennan refers to this last group: Profetsional philotophers sometimes’ wince when they hear businessmen talle about “the philosophy of advertising” or the “philosophy uf the suburban home owner.” Yet even this popular usage of the term “philosophy” shows conceca with Basic presuppositions of first principles. The common phraze “philosophy of life” refers to some set of primary beliefs according to which a man guides his ceaducy. A “philosophy of history” proceeds from those basic assumptions upoa which 4 particular histotian’s interpretation of history depends, A “philosophy of science’’ sets forth principles more basic and comprehensive than the con- clusions of the individual sciences” Auditors, then, need not be reluctant to philosophize about auditing. Indeed it is better that auditors turn to philosophy in attempting to work out the fundamental theory of auditing than that philosophers tucn to auditing. But here a note of caution is needed, There is more to the task than merely expressing feelings or subjective opinions about auditing. A great many people have been doing this for many years without any si nificant degree of success in developing auditing theory. Philosophical re- search, if it is to be carried out competently and to have some fair degree of successful accomplishment, must be conducted within the rules of pro- cedure of that type of research. Professional philosophers have a unique function in this respect. It is not their assignment to work out the philo- sophical problems of every field of knowledge. Rather theie cesponsibility is to teach artists, scieatisis, auditors, and others how to develop their own Philosophies. Professional philosophers teach us how to play the game in our own backyard. They teach us what methods are available to us, what the rules are, and when we are out of bounds, Then they leave us to play our own game, to work out the philosophy of audi 1g for ourselves, In doing this, we must have full regard for rules and boundaries, We mast point out that development of a philosophy of auditing is a far more "Philip H. Phenix, Philosophy of Education (New York: Henry Holt and Com- pany, 1958), p. 8, : *Joscph Gerard Brennan, The Meaning of Philosophy (wew York: Harper and Brothers, 1933), pp. 1-2. a." ‘THE PHILOSOPHY OF AUDITING serious matter than an individual's search for a personal “philosophy of Mite." In the final analysis, a philosophy of auditing must stand the scru- tiny of experts, On the one hand, it must recognize the particular ature uf auditing, its objective, method, and economic function. On the other hand, it must reatize that philosophy has both a critical and a constructive (ution, The critical and constructive activities are so closely related that wme philosophers contend that they engage the mind simultaneously. Uhe Philosophical Approach, Although philosophers themselves disagree auinewhat as to the purpose and methods of philosophy, some basic ideas air generally accepted, and these will guide us in this study, They a: L. Philosophy gets back to first principles, to the rationale behind the actions and thoughts which tend to be taken for granted. 1, Ehilosophy is concerned with the systematic organizatica cf knowl. edge in such a way that it becomes at once more useful and less Likely to be self-contradictory. 1. Philosophy provides a basis whereby social relationships may be molded and understood, Vor one purposes, therefore, such definitions of philosophy as: "the body uf principles underlying a given branch of learning” and “a system for nce in practical affairs” are directly useful. Yet they are much too f to give us a real understanding of philosophy’s scope and na Foe the essence of philosophy, we turn to the following quotation Wie Dictionary of Philosophy: Miythagoras is said to have called himself a lover of wisdom, But philosophy lus heen both the secking of wisdom and the wisdom sought. Originally, the rational explanation of anything; the general principles under which all facts could be explained; in this sense, indistinguishable from science. Luter, the science of Sst principles of being; the presuppositica of ultimate reslit Now, popularly, private wisdom or consolation; technically, the science of sciences, the criticism and systematization of organization of all koowledge, men fron empirical science, rational leaning, common experience, or what- ever!® Asa beginning, then, philosophy is an attitude toward knowledge, not jint an accumulation of knowledge. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, the search for wisdom. But how can the love of wisdom be applied to such A nubject as auditing? Recently, the philosophical approach has beea “Duobert D. Runes, Editor, Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Philosophi- sal Littaty, No date), p. 235.' TOWARD AN AUDITING PHILOSOPHY 9 characterized as consisting of four parts: (1) comprehension, (2) per- spective, (3) insight, and (4) vision, Brief attention to each of these may be helpful.t Comprehension implies the understanding of the whole rather than in dividual parts alone. Because he is concerned with understanding human life in the broadest sense, the philosopher “employs concepts of ‘great generality such as ‘matter, ‘mind,' ‘form,’ ‘entity,’ ‘process,’ which are “comprehensive in that they apply to the whole range of human experience, He also tries to discover relationships between seemingly diverse arpects of the world, and through these connections to comprehend the world as a meaningful whole,"* If we apply this idea to auditing, we must look for ideas relatively a3 general in our own discipline, This directs us to a consideration of such general concepts as evidence, due care, disclosure, and independence. The study of such broadly applicable concepts leads to the development of a comprehensive and coherent body of knowledge based on an interpretation of auditing as a socially useful discipline. This is much more realistic than the view now held by many that auditing is, merely a set of rules con- cemed with the best method of completing a given engagement. Perspective, as a component of the philosophical approach, calls for the breadth of outlook necessary to grasp the true and full significance of things. Thus the philosopher “would endeavor to consider any proposition in broad perspective—and not merely from the view of a special pleader —so that he can make well-grounded judgments about it." If we apply this idea to the development of a philosophy of auditing, we see the need to brush aside special pleas and transcend private con- cerns and vested interests. Each issue must be considered in the light of its agptegate importance and ramifications rather than from one of more limi- ted points of view. Immediate consequences count for very little if they conflict with more significant and far-reaching effects. Insight, the third element of the philosophical approach, emphasizes the depth of the proposed inquiry. “The search for philosophic insight is another way of saying that the philosopher seeks to uncover the basic assumptions which underlie our views of life and the world."** Basic assumptions are not only the foundation from which we reason, but like many other foundations they tend to be hidden and their importance is ip H. Phenix, loc. cit., pp. 6-8 :10 THE PHILOSOPHY oF AUDr-ING 1 . $ therefore unrecognized. No special subject can make real progress until tions, their nature, weaknesses, and implications are un-’ mined. In this respect, it must be admitted that auditing ius fallen behind certain other disciplines, although it is not alone in this respect, As auditing has increased in importance, the work of the auditor Ss come to touch upon some of the more important aspects of contem- Porary society, as we shall see in developing some Of its concepts in later chapters. Yet its underlying assumptions have not been brought forth for sctutiny and evaluation, So long as these remain implicit only, arguments and discussions will continue with little hope of constructive concl Disclosure and acceptance of these postulates a5 the basis for a theory of auditing is essential if we are to avoid bias and eliminate unsound reason- ing in this acea of knowledge, Until this is done, the trivial may pass for significant and judgment will be susceptible to influences which are no mote than superficially important. Vision, as the term is used in describing the philosophical approach, . - - does not mean unbridled speculation or irrational mysticism, It means that the philosopher has a view that lift: him from purely immedi- ale and common concerns to the wider possibilities of the world ideally and imaginatively conceived.""!* In special philosophies, particularly those concerned with current and future activities rather than with the history of thought only, vision is aa essential quality for the study of the problems relevant to the subject. This quality, however, is not granted equally to all. Those really desached from the exigencies of daily problems and long devoted to developing their atca of knowledge are most likely to be able to see and express, ahead of their times, the consequences of alternative solutions to given issues. Oth- ers can cultivate it, however, as they strive for and acquire a detached and yet serious concern for their subject. This capacity to penetrate to the reality of a question and its implications for the future is most essential in defining the prospects and establishing the goals of a young and grow- Ing discipline like auditing. ‘Thus fac we have secn that to think philosophically about a subject is to adopt a synoptic view through which the subject can be comprehended in Its totality and in relation to the world at large, to consider every issue in the light of apgregate interrelationships, to penetrate beyond casually ac- tepled beliefs to the implicit premises of its reasoning, and to look far ahead in visualizing its prospects and goals, If this is the nature of the. atudy to be undertaken, what is the method to be followed? its basic assump! vovered and exai “ Thid. v9.TOWARD AI AUDITING PHILOSOPHY un The Method of Philosophy. Each field of inquiry has its own peculiar method of inquiry, and philosophy is no exception. Thus the method is the same whether the subject is a special or a general philosophy. One of the principal aspects of this method is aptly described in the followin, The philosophical way of treating questions . «can be contrasted sharply with other common ways of handling an issue, such as fighting about it, wating upon "it, oF compromising concerning it. None of these other methods compe!s its users to understand the problem in hand. So that the philosopher's solution, which al- most always takes more time in the beginning, and looks less promising than the others, generally has the great advantage of being more lasting, because lect superficial, in the end. Philotophizing about a thing implies an unusually stubborn attempt to understand it as thoroughly as possible, 30 a1 to give it the most thoughtful treatment of which we are capable.” Complementary to this emphasis on thorough understanding is tle pro- cedure of developing “questions” which by their nature encourage study and understanding. This principle is epitomized in the following state- ment: Any meaning that philosophy has for individuals or for society mest take into consideration what Byron once termed the “eternal spitit of the chairiess mind”: ‘Man has eternally questioned "Why?" Pethaps there has never becn a more penetrating insight into the ceil task of philosophy than this statement: “Philosophers see questions where th rest of us see facts." OF the traditional approaches recognized in the study of philosophy we find the analytic and valuational methods to be the more fru.tful in de- veloping auditing theory and we will integrate and use these wo. Audit- ing is concerned with social responsibility and ethical conduct as weil as with the collection and evaluation of evidence, so each of these methods has a place in this work. On the authority of a contemporary writer, these approaches are de- scribed as follows: The Analytic Approach: Many come to philosophy because they feel it important to subject to analysis and critical reflection notions which are taken for granted by most of us. Such persons are attracted by the rigor and precision in thinking; they admire exactness in procedure, The analytical philosopher asks “How do "Harold A. Larrabee, Whu Philosophy Is (New You 1928), p. 61, author's emphasis. . : eile J. $2: Posi Contaziont Idear and Dynamic Events (Privately Pubs lished, Baldwin-Wallace College, Berea, Ohio, 1959), pp. 278, 280. Macy-Masius, The Van-Az THE PHILOSOPHY OF AUDITING you know?" tet . finite row? for he is interested in problems conceming the range, methods, and : human knowledge. He asks, “What do you mean?” for he is convinced =e problems of Philosophy will be solved if inquiry is made into the traning of the terms of the argument. Today the analytic philosopher uses the Wghly developed technique of modern logic to help him in his analysis of philosophical problems... the Valuational Approac ail esthetic. . .. Many co le the good life for man ‘There are, among others, two types of values, moral 1¢ to philosophy secking answers to the question “What Such @ philotopher whote dominant interest i moral prsents us with a “philosophy of life," « doctrine concerning the nature of man, Aesieable gosls of human life, principles by which we may guide our com et. 38 Uy its very nature, auditing lends itself to the analytic approach in cer- {nin of its aspects and to the moral-valuational approach in others. For ernnyple, audit judgment rests upon the quality of belief acquired through Ihe collection of creation of evidence. This warrants the study of the the- ties of knowledge and proof as developed in philosophy. When the facts asterted in financial statements are argumentative, belicf is justified only tw fae as one can reason from established evidence. The more rigorous ihe teasoning, the more accurate the conclusions and the more reliable the Judgment : In a very real sense, the auditing function is accomplished under aa “honor system" that brings ethical conduct to the fore. Without readily applied standards of measurement or rules of conduct for an examination, the primary assurance of satisfactory performance inevitably becomes the duditor’s sense of professional responsibility. His standard of values, licrefore, becomes controlling, Thus, in auditing, we have two kinds of |Woblems requiring two different methods of study: problems of fact and Jwublems of valuc, These are given additional attention in the following thaptee but are mentioned here to suggest the necessity of an integrated avalytic and valuational approach in this study. ‘The applicability of the valuational approach points out that philosophy {e not analytical only, It has important social implications as well, and thete are of particular significance in a professional field such as auditing. Philosophy is not merely, of even prisaacil {n our culture ate inclined to believe. It Iinpottant one it is. The verbal tradition that we call philosophy equips each Mowing child within its embrace with a uniform set of beliefs, of ideas and Wleals, It thus makes for uniformity of behavior, which is essential to coherent & conceptual process, as many people 2 social process as well, and a very "Mien, op. cit., pp. 3-6.TOWARD AN AUDITING PHILOSOPHY B social organization and the effective conduct of group life. A philosophy not only | pre ides people with information needed for action; it stimulates them to action; inspires them, and defines the goals for which they shall strive, A philosophy is therefore an important means of social integration, It is, so to speak, the peculiarly connective tissue of human society, , ® fe 4 are * ‘The applicability of this description to auditing may be seen even more clearly if we ace permitted to paraphrase the last four sentences in this fashion: Philosophy thus mikes for w ; uniformity of professional performance, which is essential to cohexent professional organization and the efiective conduct of the Profession. A philosophy not only provides professional men with information needed for action; it stimulates them to satisfactory professional performance, in- spites them, and defines the goals for which they strive. A philosophy is therefore aa important means of professional integration. It is, $0 to speak, the peculiarly connective tissue of a profession. It is in this last function of philosophy that we find the clues to some, of the problems that face auditing as a profession. If a philosophy, aa underlying structure of reason and purpose, can be developed, it should _ provide a basis for determining professional action. And if difficult prob-,. lems still remain insoluble, at least to that extent the underlying phil remains inadequately developed. : Having considered the nature of a philosophical investigation, let us now turn to the nature of auditing, Does auditing lend itself to this type of study? What is its nature and what will be gained by such aa inquiry? It appears from the preceding discussion that a considerable amount of good can come from a thorough and penetrating study of auditing. The existence of numerous unsolved problems indicates the need. Little more justification ‘seems necessary. Yet it is desirable to give attention to the nature of auditing at this point so that we may have some agreement re- specting the essence of our subject, The foundation of a philosophy of auditing necessarily starts with the nature of auditing itself, What type of activity is it? How may it be described? What is its relationship to other fields of knowledge? From what other disciplines does it borrow ideas? Auditing as a Discipline. Many of us tend to think of auditing:as a subdivision of accounting, possibly because that is how it was introduced to us when we first studied it and because every auditor we know is also an accountant. As a matter of fact, however, it is quite incorrect to con- sider auditing to be a subdivision of accounting, Auditing is concecned * Leslie A: White, The Evolution of Culture (New York: McGraw-Hill, Book Co, 1959), p. 264.