http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q="within the limits of pr...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 mins (2009-06-12 15:10:03 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

and code of conduct...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs (2009-06-13 02:31:05 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
eth⋅ics  /ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun 1. (used with a singular or plural verb) 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) 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.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethic

eth·ic (thk)
n.
1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" Gregg Easterbrook.
2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/interna_eng.html?dizionari...
Lemma etica
Traduzione s.f. ethics [uncountable] / - professionale, professional ethics / - aziendale, business ethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_ethics
Professional ethics concerns the moral issues that arise because of the specialist knowledge that professionals attain, and how the use of this knowledge should be governed when providing a service to the public.[1]

Professional responsibility
The professional carries additional moral responsibilities to those held by the population in general. This is because professionals are capable of making and acting on an informed decision in situations that the general public cannot, because they have not received the relevant training.[2] For example, a layman member of the public could not be held responsible for failing to act to save a car crash victim because they could not give an emergency tracheotomy. This is because they do not have the relevant knowledge. In contrast, a fully trained doctor (with the correct equipment) would be capable of making the correct diagnosis and carrying out the procedure and we would think it wrong if they stood by and failed to help in this situation. You cannot be held accountable for failing to do something that you do not have the ability to do.

This additional knowledge also comes with authority and power. The client places trust in the professional on the basis that the service provided will be of benefit to them. It would be quite possible for the professional to use his authority to exploit the client.[3] An obvious example is that of the dentist who carries out unneeded dental work on his patients in order to gain more money. It is likely that the patient will not have sufficient knowledge to question what is being done, and so will undergo and pay for the treatment.


[edit] Codes of practice
Questions arise as to the ethical limits of the professional’s responsibility and how power and authority should be used in service to the client and society. Most professions have internally enforced codes of practice that members of the profession must follow, to prevent exploitation of the client and preserve the integrity of the profession. This is not only to the benefit of the client but to the benefit of those belonging to the profession. For example, an American business may approach an engineer to certify the safety of a project which is not safe. Whilst one engineer may refuse to certify the project on moral grounds, the business may find a less scrupulous engineer who will be prepared to certify the project for a bribe, thus saving the business the expense of redesigning.[4] Disciplinary codes allow the profession to draw a standard of conduct and ensure that individual practitioners meet this standard, by disciplining them from the professional body if they do not practice accordingly. This allows those professionals who act with conscience to practice in the knowledge that they will not be undermined commercially by those who have less ethical qualms. It also maintains the public’s trust in the profession, meaning that the public will continue to seek their services.


[edit] Problems with internal regulation
There are questions surrounding the validity of professional codes of ethics. On a practical level it is very difficult for those independent of the profession to monitor practice, leaving the possibility that a code of practice may be self serving. This is because the nature of professions is that they have almost a complete monopoly on a particular area of knowledge. For example, until recently, the English courts deferred to the professional consensus on matters relating to their practice that lay outside case law and legislation.[5]


[edit] Separatism
On a theoretical level, there is debate as to whether an ethical code for a profession should be consistent with the requirements of morality governing the public. Separatists argue that professions should be allowed to go beyond such confines when they judge it necessary. This is because they are trained to produce certain outcomes which may take moral precedence over other functions of society.[6] For example, it could be argued that a doctor may lie to a patient about the severity of their condition, if there is reason to think that telling the patient could cause them so much distress that it would be detrimental to their health. This would be a disrespect of the patient’s autonomy, as it denies them information on something that could have a great impact on their life. This would generally be seen as morally wrong. However, if the end of improving and maintaining health is given a moral priority in society, then it may be justifiable to contravene other moral demands in order to meet this goal.[7] Separatism is based on a relativist conception of morality that there can be different, equally valid moral codes that apply to different sections of society and differences in codes between societies (see moral relativism). If moral universalism is ascribed to, then this would be inconsistent with the view that professions can have a different moral code, as the universalist holds that there is only one valid moral code for all.[8]

http://www.roboethics.org/atelier2006/docs/ROBOETHICS ROADMA...

http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/7/delre.htm
2. Ethic and ethics
We must begin with a discussion of words used in connection with our theme. There are in English, as in the other languages shaped by the Greek, Roman, and Christian tradition, several terms associated with values, duties, obligations, interdictions; most used is surely the adjective ‘moral,’ but nouns such as ethic, ethics, deontology, morals, with and without reference to science, are current in newspapers, magazines, and journals. This frequent recurrence means that the question of morals continues to be important, despite claims that ethical rules are just systems of taboos; on the other hand, the accompanying lack of sensitivity to the precise meanings of words is a symptom of the loss of culture by affluent societies.[4] Examination of a good dictionary helps to clarify the differences on the basis of current usage, and provides a list of key notions on which the whole subject rests.[5] We shall focus our attention on ‘ethics’ and related key concepts. The acceptations of that word given by our dictionary are four. Excluding those common-usage acceptations for which we shall use different expressions (‘system of moral principles’ and ‘moral principles, as of an individual’), two seem to be relevant to our subject:
(a), the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. (ex. medical ethics);

(b) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness or wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

In our society, most people only think of ‘ethics’ in the first acceptation, if at all, without pausing to consider that today rules of conduct are largely decided by opinion makers and political correctness groups. As a matter of fact, it would seem that in the context chosen here freedom of judgment presupposes that one should make up one’s mind on at least two problems: (i), whether or not rules of conduct are required in science; (ii) what aspect of ‘doing science’ they should refer to. These problems lie within the scope of ethics in sense (b), which is the sense we shall have in mind henceforth, unless the context makes clear that the other acceptation is involved.



3. Branches of ethics and conduct
Ethics is divided into two branches. One is deontological ethics, which deals with right action and the nature of duty, without regard to motives or ends. A brief reflection shows that what people now call ethics, as in the expression ‘medical ethics,’ is a sloppy replacement of the more difficult but more precise word ‘deontology,’ a list of rules of conduct whose critical analysis is precisely the object of deontological ethics. The other branch is axiological ethics, which deals primarily with the value of the motives and ends of any action.
Clearly, it is important here to specify what is meant by ‘conduct’. Roughly speaking, conduct and behavior are synonyms, but, on closer inspection, one sees that, while the latter includes instinctive responses to situations of all kinds, the former refers to the pattern of choices a man makes in his relations with other people, nature, the godhead, inasmuch as it may cause damage and unhappiness, or violate what the ancient Romans called fas, what conforms to the will of the gods. In short, a person’s conduct in a particular circumstance is the ensemble of deliberate, responsible choices or decisions he makes in those circumstances. There may be alternatives one ought to choose or reject even if they cannot be classed as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ by ordinary standards. There may be alternatives that are just a matter of taste or fashion, and the like, and thus do not depend on any interdiction or obligation. Therefore, actions making up the conduct of a person should be classed as right, indifferent or ethically irrelevant, wrong. Note again that ‘right’ includes ‘good,’ and ‘wrong’ includes ‘bad,’ but the former distinction is more general: for example the decision to spend a free hour watching TV rather than taking a walk might be unwise, and therefore wrong, while not necessarily bad. Right and wrong may be seen as associated with wisdom, while bad and good are associated with morals; but since wisdom presupposes the free, critical adoption of moral standards and rules as well as a sense of responsibility and duty, it seems appropriate here to think of ethics as the science which studies in general right and wrong rather than good and evil. As pointed out in definition (b) above, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ may be reserved to motives and ends. An extensive examination of the cases in which the good-bad pair is more appropriate than the right-wrong one is outside the scope of this paper; here we may be content with the traditional acceptations without further discussion.

http://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0e_weltethos-im-allta...
In fact, the two words are often used interchangeably. But in the strict and precise sense, there is a difference. “Ethics” refers to a body of teaching about moral behaviour, i. e. an ethical system, like that of Aristotle or Immanuel Kant. Living together peacefully does not demand that everyone agrees in a particular ethical system.

“Ethic” refers to something different, not a body of teaching or a system, but rather an inner moral attitude that expresses itself as a way of behaving according to definite norms and rules. In other words, it is a moral stance that determines one's way of acting.

http://www.repatriationfoundation.org/foundation/images/pdf/...
However, instead of biting into the suggested title (“Tribal Use vs. Private Abuse: The Case for Return”) I have decided to speak to the ethic of collecting. The difference between ethics and ethic is the difference between looking into what is moral or immoral within the province of collecting as opposed to looking at collecting as an ethic of choice.

http://community.livejournal.com/applied_ethics/256.html
Professional Ethics Vs. General Ethics?
roysimon posted the following to a personal Live Journal:

I perceive a big gulf between "ethics" as ordinary citizens use the word and "professional ethics." To me, "ethics" has a strong moral component. The concern is right vs. wrong. "Professional ethics," on the other hand, more often describes a code of conduct rather than a moral code. The code of conduct (for example, the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct or the New York Lawyer's Code of Conduct) attempts to produce moral results in the sense of the greatest good for the greatest number, but "ethics" and "professional ethics" often clash in particular cases.
I recognize the "gulf" Roy mentions, but I wonder if it is between "professional ethics" and "ethic" or if stems from a more fundamental conflict between general ethical principles and particular applications of a principle. For example we might accept "don't lie" as a general moral principle and yet see lying as justified in a particular situation (e.g. to avoid hurting a friend's feelings.) In the case of a professional code of ethics, say for lawyers, there may be a rule protecting client confidentiality and an instance in which following the rule results in an injustice. Resolving such conflicts is the central work of moral theorizing. However, problems such as those Roy refers to arise, I believe, when professional ethical codes are viewed simply as a means to avoid malpractice litigation rather than as an attempt to articulate the moral values of a profession.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/dictionary-articles/Define-Eth...
Ethics are often summed up in what is considered the “golden rule”—do unto others as you would have them do unto you. While this makes sense as a general rule of thumb, it does not truly offer much in terms of helping one to make moral decisions in daily life.

Society often places certain standards of conduct upon the people which are governed together. Groups of people who agree about what constitutes major unethical acts, such as stealing or murder, work to have their viewpoint written into laws that govern the entire body of people. However, not all ethical areas are governed by law, such as lying to a parent or friend. Other areas of law, such as the debate on abortion or stem cell research, are considered ethical judgments made by governments on behalf of the people for the greater good.

Religious and political groups have often been criticized for trying to impose their own ethics and morals upon the larger society. Companies and professional societies such as the American Medical Association will also have ethical standards, often referred to as a code of conduct or rules of conduct, by which they and their employees abide. Each group determines their ethical stance based upon different guidelines, whether it is established principals, religious book, or group agreement. While members of the group may follow the ethical guidelines as a principle by which they believe everyone should act, they might also have a set of personal ethics which also governs their own behaviors.

http://dictionary.babylon.com/ethics
n. set of moral principles or values, principles of conduct governing an institution, or an individual

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics
1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics><Christian ethics> bplural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs (2009-06-13 02:40:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/et/ethics161764.html
The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ethic

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404000322.html
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morality and the distinctions between right and wrong. Ethics makes a study of the tensions that arise among people's values, and it attempts, through applied logic, to set out rules of conduct for each particular class of human action. Because it has its basis in logic rather than in, say, religion, ethics is usually considered more objective than morality. Both ethics and morality, however, attempt to tell people what they ought to do.
...
PUBLIC HEALTH ETHICS
Like ethics, public health has been a concern of human societies since antiquity. Plagues of contagious diseases have decimated populations since civilization began, and their significance has always been recognized. Because of the life-and-death importance of disease and the skill and training required to treat it, societies have always recognized the importance of physicians and have accorded them substantial jurisdiction over life and death. With this jurisdiction comes much power and, more importantly, much responsibility. This power and responsibility resulted in the first code of professional ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, which set out rules of conduct for physicians in their dealings with patients. Medical ethics, however, has evolved far beyond its roots and encompasses not only doctor-patient ethics, but also biomedical research ethics, the more socially based health ethics, and public health ethics.

Public health must balance the public good with the good of individuals. This perspective sometimes leads to conflict. For example, one of the most respected ethical traditions is doctor-patient confidentiality. However, in the case of a public health threat, such as a communicable disease, a tension naturally arises between the ethical responsibility to maintain confidentiality and the responsibility to protect the public health.

ETHICAL THEORY
Human interactions have the potential to result in ethical tensions. These tensions reflect a particular, unique context. In each context, opposing sides differ in that they subscribe to a particular set of values. Each side may be equally committed to, and able to defend, its moral judgment. How, then, are ethical tensions to be resolved when each situation is unique? The great volume of academic study in ethics over thousands of years has produced numerous approaches to ethical analysis. Fortunately, however, ethics has been studied well enough that some common threads have been recognized.

The dominant approach in public health has been to apply the utilitarian theory of ethics to resolving issues relating to public health. This theory focuses on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people and, thus, tends to focus on protecting the population rather than the rights of individuals (e.g., laws requiring the reporting of communicable diseases and the mandating of vaccination programs). Causing more good than harm is what drives public health decision making. However, in addition to this approach, other approaches are now commonly used. For example, duty-based ethical theory (deontology) and the four principles of bioethics as articulated by Tom L. Beauchamp and James R. Childress (1994) are helpful for both illustrating ethical tensions and serving as a basis for decision making. The four principles are:

Respect for autonomy. This is the principle of allowing people to make decisions about themselves for themselves. It is about respecting human dignity, believing in a person's ability to make good decisions, and is the opposite of paternalism.
Nonmaleficence. This means that actions should not harm others. It is derived from the Hippocratic injunction to "first, do no harm."
Beneficence. This is the mirror image of nonmaleficence, meaning that actions are taken in order to maximize benefits to individuals and society. It is the principle of doing good.
Justice. This refers to distributive justice and is the principle requiring that benefits and harms should be equally distributed among people. Related ideas are fairness, equity, and impartiality.