|WikiProject Philosophy / Ethics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
I don't see the point of this entry:
1. It's not really an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article
2. It's seriously incomplete / inaccurate. For example: "Such codes exist in most professions to guide interactions between specialists with advanced knowledge ... and the general public."...
a. I don't see the relevance of advanced knowlege
b. Many ethical codes have nothing to do with interactions with the general public. For example, consider ethical codes for biologists about cloning.
3. It's kind of obnoxious. For example, "As the public is in general incapable of distinguishing good from bad decisions"... um... do we need to be this condescending?
4. There is a totally gratuitous slam against accounting
5. "Public guidance typically is confined to ensuring that there is such an internally consistent code" - does "public guidance" really attempt to ensure that there is an internally consistent code?
6. I see no reason to believe that "ethical codes" are more consistent than "moral codes". Mike Friedman 19:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think this refers to the fact that ethics are a rational study of morality. Some call it the science of morality. Ethics are based on rationale, imperatives, or forumlations, not necessarily value judgements.
Consider for example: Bill wants to download an essay to hand in to his history professor. Under the first formulation of Kantian ethics, you should will the moral act to be true universally. If the act doesn't make sense or truth, then the action is immoral.
In this example, if Bill hands in the essay he bought, and this happened universally always, then the assesment would no longer be a valid test of student's ability, and the task no longer has any meaning. He should not download someone else's essay.
This is what I think the author means by internal consistence. Ethical formulations are internally consistent with rational logic, where a moral decision does not need to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, if it was just up to me I would delete this entry totally - I feel it does not add value - but since I am new to Wikipedia I don't feel comfortable doing that. So I'm flagging it for more attention by others. Mike Friedman 19:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've made changes: removed the judgemental language and "public guidance sections." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrstone (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Moral vs. ethical: Moral is societal, religious, or other "artificial" construct determined. For example, causing someone injury (with no mitigating circumstances) is widely considered unethical. Sex outside of marriage between two consenting adults is a moral issue - no harm, no foul in the ethical world, but strongly censured by some moral codes. This is not the best example, but will hopefully help. KillerChihuahua 04:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
A concrete thing
One important reason to keep this entry is that an ethical code, or code of ethics, is often a concrete, formal document adopted after much discussion by a professional organization or society, in much the same sense that constitutions or bylaws are. While the discussion between "moral" vs. "ethical" codes is interesting, and not irrelevant, I have never heard of a professional field voting on a "moral code," while many do have "codes of ethics" that are literally guidelines for acceptable practice and behaviors of members of a given profession. Hope that helps. Bruxism 21:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I think this article should be listed under code of ethics rather than ethical code because in the professions and in corporations, that is what such things are referred to as. I have never actually heard the term "ethical code" in use. Is there consensus to change this? Bruxism 20:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I concur in these criticisms
The distinction between ethical codes and moral codes as set out here is gratuitous and unsustained. I don't think it can be sustained from within any rigorous meta-ethical system. Ethics is always about the συνηθης τοπος, the place in which action takes place among (at least) human beings (gimme a break and spare me the arguments for extension). That clearly encompasses both individual action and action of people together (morals and politics, if you will). The tendency to divide the two seems to me a relatively late phenom.
For that reason, it seems to me a more comprehensive and careful discussion of moral codes, comprehending code-ethics as part of it, is in order. --djenner 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There ought to be some examples. And maybe also mention of Don't Be Evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)