|
xssve -> RE: Master's Code of Ethics (10/29/2009 12:36:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: skeletoncrew
i did like the idea of defining what ethics are exactly, so we have SOME idea of what we are talking about:
ethics
–plural noun 1.(used with a singular or plural verb[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence. 4.(usually used with a singular verb[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CalifChick
A code of ethics defines values, standards and principles, and defines the manner in which you strive to live your life. I suppose you could have an "unethical" code of ethics, although that seems to defeat the purpose as well as being an oxymoron.
Hence the reason my brain hurts.
this might blow your mind a little bit and make it hurt some more, but for example Adolf Hilter WAS an ethical person...since "rightness", "wrongness", "badness", and "goodness" are 100% COMPLETELY subjective...sorry to blow your mind, but one CAN be an "evil" person and be COMPLETELY moral and ethical, it is all relative...and since i am talking about nazis don't get me started on the so-called "medical ethics" of the doctors that readily helped and supported the Third Reich all over Europe(and people wonder why i don't trust doctors)...
No. Morals are how you conduct yourself and are subjective and relativistic - ethics are how your behavior affects other people, and are are objectively analyzable.
Morals can be ethical or not, but if you examine ethical systems long enough, you'll realize that ethics are a simple cost benefit ratio: simply, how are the costs and benefits of a given act distributed?
The more symmetrical the cost benefit ratio, the more ethical the act - and symmetrical doesn't always mean "even"; i.e., when you take a job you negotiate for a certain level of compensation in return for performing certain duties - it makes no difference how uneven the split is if it happens to be mutually agreeable to both parties.
To shift the costs of behavior that benefits you onto others, against their will, is unethical.
Hitler benefited from the Holocaust, the Jews provided a common enemy for the Germans to unite against, which helped Hitler to consolidate his power - but the Jews bore the cost of that act asymmetrically (to put it mildly), thus, the act is unethical.
In fact, eventually, the entire German people ended up paying the cost of devoting critical infrastructure to eradicating the bulk of their skilled labor pool, and as is often the case in unethical practices, ended up badly compromising their own fitness as a group.
|
|
|
|
