There is a school of thought that thinks of ethics as obedience to rules. It is more formally called deontology, and somewhat popular among the Abrahamic Faiths.
Deontological ethics - Wikipedia
Competing views attribute significance to the consequences of the actions as opposed to just the actions themselves and their suitability to some set of rules.
One of those competing views is pragmatic ethics, which acknowledges that moral rules should be questioned and improved when the opportunity arises.
Another is virtue ethics, which perceives and describes ethics as a practice, as the expression of wisdom and virtue as opposed simple obedience to the authority of certain rules. By that perspective, ethics are skills that can be learned and trained.
And the last major school of thought on ethics is consequentialism, which states that the moral validity of an action (or inaction) can only be gauged from its consequences.
By my understanding, there is a progression of accuracy in this sequence of perspectives on ethics. Of accuracy, and also of boldness and scope. Deontology is easily the less useful and more limited of the four perspectives, and Consequentialism is the best, most useful, most ambitious one.
It is also the most difficult to delimit, to describe, or to predict. And I see that as a good thing.
Why?
Because ethics are a practical need that arises from the conjunction of the abilities to act in ways that affect the well being of sensitive entities and to discern the likely consequences of our own actions and inactions.
Ethical impact is an unavoidable consequence of the coexistence of those two capabilities, while ethical skill is a permanent and fluid challenge.
It is to some degree everyone's duty to continually create, question and improve ethical models to guide our own behavior and goals. It is an individual duty, because we differ on our abilities and therefore on our ethical parameters; it is a dynamic duty, because the possibilities and consequences of our actions and inactions are limited by circunstances beyond our control; and it is a rational, logical duty that must be guided by awareness and reason, because ethics is applied reason.
Deontological ethics - Wikipedia
Competing views attribute significance to the consequences of the actions as opposed to just the actions themselves and their suitability to some set of rules.
One of those competing views is pragmatic ethics, which acknowledges that moral rules should be questioned and improved when the opportunity arises.
Another is virtue ethics, which perceives and describes ethics as a practice, as the expression of wisdom and virtue as opposed simple obedience to the authority of certain rules. By that perspective, ethics are skills that can be learned and trained.
And the last major school of thought on ethics is consequentialism, which states that the moral validity of an action (or inaction) can only be gauged from its consequences.
By my understanding, there is a progression of accuracy in this sequence of perspectives on ethics. Of accuracy, and also of boldness and scope. Deontology is easily the less useful and more limited of the four perspectives, and Consequentialism is the best, most useful, most ambitious one.
It is also the most difficult to delimit, to describe, or to predict. And I see that as a good thing.
Why?
Because ethics are a practical need that arises from the conjunction of the abilities to act in ways that affect the well being of sensitive entities and to discern the likely consequences of our own actions and inactions.
Ethical impact is an unavoidable consequence of the coexistence of those two capabilities, while ethical skill is a permanent and fluid challenge.
It is to some degree everyone's duty to continually create, question and improve ethical models to guide our own behavior and goals. It is an individual duty, because we differ on our abilities and therefore on our ethical parameters; it is a dynamic duty, because the possibilities and consequences of our actions and inactions are limited by circunstances beyond our control; and it is a rational, logical duty that must be guided by awareness and reason, because ethics is applied reason.