Ethics is the formal study of moral standards and conduct.
For this reason, the study of ethics is also often called "moral philosophy."
What is good? What is evil? How should I behave - and why? How should I balance
my needs against the needs of others? These are some of the questions asked in
the field of ethics, a branch of philosophy which has some of the most immediate
and obvious consequences for how we live our lives. -- from the About network:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_index.htm
--Submitted by Adam Rose rowreform@yahoo.com
Morals are the rules of the game. Ethics are how you choose to play them.
---Submitted by Budd Kass Kassh1934@aol.com
integrity: accordance with
the relevant moral values, norms and rules
organizational integrity:
organization(al behavior) is in accordance with the moral values and norms and
the rules accepted by the organization's members and its stakeholders
public integrity: public
action in accordance with the relevant moral values, norms and rules
ethics 1: the collection of
moral values and norms, standards and principles which provides a framework
for acting
(ethics 2: reflection on the moral aspects)
moral: refers to what is
judged as right, just, or good
values are `judgments of
worth', moral principles or standards which should have a certain weight in the
choice of action
norms state what is morally
correct behavior in a certain situation
(public) corruption: the use
of public office for private gain (coming from interested outside parties)
---Submitted by Leo Huberts <LWJC.Huberts@fsw.vu.nl>
Ethics are principles and values that guide right and wrong behavior. ---
Submitted by Don Menzel
dmenzel1@tampabay.rr.com
"Ethical behavior in public service involves intentionally responsible
action, honoring implicit and explicit social contracts, and seeking to
prevent, avoid or rectify harm. Specifically in the organizational context,
this conduct also includes promoting long-term goodwill within and across
group boundaries and respecting the needs of others both within and outside
the firm." Cohen, D. V. (1995). Creating ethical work climates: A
socioeconomic perspective. J
ournal of Socio-Economics, 24(2), 317-344.
---Submitted by Rod Erakovich <roderakovich@comcast.net>
Morality is based on the absolutes of Right and Wrong that are found
in sacred doctrines that transcend time, place, and generation. Hence, it is
not based on consensus, nor is it "situational". In some cultures, it is
based on ideological documents (Marx, Mao, Confucius), in others, it is based
on theocentric documents. Not everyone has to share in the belief of those
documents, but all must understand the origin of moral thinking and moral
action within the particular culture. That is, I do not have to believe in
the writings of Mao or Confucius, but I do need to understand that what is
Right and Wrong are derived from those writings. Thomas Jefferson understood
where the morality in this culture was derived, as per his writings on the
morality of Jesus of Nazarus. Note, we do not have to agree (as Jefferson did
not) HOW to get to heaven, but we do have to accept (as he urged his fellow
citizens) to accept the moral teachings in theocentric documents. (Which, by
the way, are the same moral teachings in the sacred documents of Jews,
Muslims, and Christians.) In other words, you can be a non-believer and
reject the mysticism and spirituality, but the moral teachings must be
recognized as the foundation of the political community.
As Terry Cooper and many others have stated, ethics is based on the values of
fairness, equity, and due process. It is not based on absolutes but rather
on consensus of the present generation and locality (what was ethical behavior
in the 19th century American west is not ethical behavior today) and therefore
it does not transcend time, place, and generation.
The main difference, borrowing from Terry Cooper again, is that ethical
decisions tend to let you sleep well at night, while moral decisions should
make you lose sleep at night. (Moral decisions may not be fair or equitable.)
If I could draw a pyramid, I would to demonstrate what I believe to be another
facet of moral and ethical decision-making. At the apex of the pyramid are
moral questions (dealing with absolutes based on sacred documents (in the
U.S., theocentric documents). I encourage students to look "there" first
before making a decision. If there are absolutes, then stop there and make a
decision as difficult as it maybe and as perhaps unfair as it may be. If no
absolutes are involved in the decision, then move to the next level in the
pyramid: ethical questions. Are there issues of fairness, equity, due
process, etc that should be addressed. If the answer is "yes", then make
your decision at that level. If no, go to the bottom of the pyramid: to
routine decisions.
There is not a wall that separates each level, however: for instance, a
governor making a decision on whether or not to execute a convicted murderer
is making a moral decision and therefore should not sleep well that evening,
regardless of her decision. The method of execution, however, is an ethical
one: what is fair, what is technologically possible, who should view, how to
treat the inmate, etc. We should sleep easier making those decisions:
whereas hanging was once the "ethical" way, technology and consensus led to
electrocution and then lead to injection. The number of appeals is also an
ethical outcome. (In the 19th century, it was ethical to hang a convicted
murderer rather quickly, in the 21st century, more appeals is more ethical
than fewer appeals.) Once the ethical issues have been decided, the routine
decisions can be made: which prison serves as the place of execution, who
gives the injections, the time of the execution, etc. But the order should
always be: first Moral decisions, then Ethical decisions, then routine
decisions.
The problem in our society is at best, we look only at issues from an ethical
perspective: consensus, fairness, etc, and too infrequently from a moral
perspective: there are "right" and "wrong" issues out there. Sadly, abortion
is one of those public policies which we look at from the perspective of
ethics: what is fair to the mother, killing the child earlier is better than
in later trimesters, a vacuum is better than forceps, it is over in an hour,
etc.
We may not agree with each other on a moral issue, but we should at least
address public policy from a moral plain before proceeding to the ethical
(situational/consensus) level. Who knows, we may conclude that theocentric
documents permit the killing of the unborn and prevent the killing of the
inmate........
The uncomfortable part of that great debate over morality is the risk of
confusing moral behavior with people. Theocentric documents are subject to
person interpretation and hence, the issue isn't the morality of the
individual but the morality of behavior. No one has a corner on what is moral
behavior. But we do not know what is moral behavior unless we debate public
policy alternatives from a moral perspective before we take ethical "sides"
and implement "routine" decisions.
---Submitted by Jim Slack
jslack@uab.edu
A standard dictionary definition defines ethics as "a consensus of
moral principles." This sounds good but what does it mean?
Morals and ethics are connected, but they are distinctly different concepts.
Morality is rationally bounded by an individual context and is derived from a
set of beliefs and assumptions about life, which shape values, attitudes and
behaviors (observable and unobservable). Ethics, on the other hand, is
rationally bounded by a group context and is derived from a consensus
of moral principles. Jurgen Habermas' communicative rationality
is a powerful theory of the evolution (or devolution) of ethics. As such, the
essence of ethics represents modal characteristics determined by the nature of
the group or, in other words, its predisposition based on the salience of
certain beliefs or assumptions. The danger of this approach is that ethics
becomes a reductionist effort over time, blurring the distinction between
moral and immoral behavior at the individual level. As an example, Roe Vs
Wade made abortion legal (and therefore, ethical) in our society. Yet, for
many people, abortion is still regarded an immoral act.
The blurring of ethics with morality has implications for societies,
organizations, etc., based on "characteristic" affinities (or a common set of
values). For example, Al Qaeda demonstrates behavior based on group
"ethics." To them, decapitating noncombatants is a "moral" behavior. Yet,
compared to the "ethics" of other groups, what Al Qaeda is doing is generally
considered immoral as opposed to unethical. As another example, the images
and reports of Abu Graib abuses also were considered immoral as opposed to
unethical. Which is considered more grievous: decapitating an innocent or
humiliating someone? Seeing behavior as immoral as opposed to unethical in
these two instances may be more consistent and congruent than seeing the
behavior as unethical. If true, then this notion ought to beg the question as
to why. My suspicion is that when it is time to judge behaviors, one resorts
to a more fundamental set of beliefs that tend to be individual, yet
universal--a near absolute sense of morality. Ethics, on the other hand, is a
dynamic adaptation to circumstances over time, and without a clear sense of
the context (considering both physical and temporal factors) that shapes it,
we find ourselves dealing with "situational ethics" that may not be truly
grounded as a healthy "consensus of moral principles."
---Submitted by Ronald J. Scott
RScott3243@aol.com
Ethics are the internal rules that drive one to follow or not to follow
external rules. Of course, this definition works best when morals are the
external rules. Simply being law-abiding begs the ethical question.
---Submitted by James Nordin <janordin@sbcglobal.net>
Ethical conduct is doing good things in rational ways.
---Submitted by Larry Cobb
EthicsWorks@aol.com