View Single Post
  #2  
Unread July 26th, 2004, 09:06 AM
loftus75 loftus75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Default Re: What defines a collegue as "unethical'?

[quote=Darabe015]The question really is more like this: How do you know the difference between what is an ethics issue, a moral issue or just a plain lack of integrity issue...regarding behaviors/choices of a collegue that are at least questionable? AND, what is the standard approach to a situation like this? This is a delicate issue and I appreciate your response. Thankyou!

It seems to me you can divide the answer down logically.

Morality is a cultural and ideological issue, what one culture may see as morally void would be seen by another as acceptable. It is a social construct.

Ethics, tend to be more localised, that is set by people connected to, or with an interest in, the ethical subject. For example, Medical staff are usually guided by a code of conduct generated by persons either connected to, or with an interest in, medical issues.

Integrity is related to deception and honesty. This concept is fairly universal.

All of these can interrelate. To this extent it may be moral to deceive someone if the intention is to protect. For instance I may lie to save my family from harm and would be morally justified in doing so even though I may be deceiving someone. However like all social constructs much is dependant on context and circumstances, and some might even argue history.

Much is also based on our personal values. If we are liberal of mind we may find a moral issue less weighted than if we were connected to a fundamentalist religion.

So asking the question, how do you know the difference between these terms and values, will be dependent on who you are, where you are and why you have developed this view.........it could take a book or two to answer that Equally I believe I can safely say that there is no algorithm or universal set of rules people apply to these issues other than to say follow what you believe to be right. It is my personal view you should not damage the accused in the process of making your accusation, or at the very least should minimise the damage., For instance claiming a person to be a child abuser without substantial evidence can have long term ramifications on that person even though there may be no truth in the allegation to begin with.
Reply With Quote