Which is why people speak of “medical ethics” or “journalistic ethics”, as opposed to “medical morality” and “journalistic morality”.
Actually, that’s a different use of the word ethics: the rules of conduct for a group or profession. You can meaningfully say that following the rules of medical ethics is unethical and not to anyone’s benefit.
An example of what? My point was that that sentence is not a contradiction, because “ethics” in that particular definition just means following established rules of conduct, which does not necessarily coincide with the individual’s benefit or the group’s benefit.
Doctors established them in order to preserve the legitimacy of their profession. That’s my understanding, in any case.
In some cases it was to enforce a cartel (emphasis mine):
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art–if they desire to learn it–without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else. …
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Wow… hadn’t read the original, interesting. Still, that is the Oath as it was 2k years ago, and as such it is no longer part of established medical ethics. I think it’s plausible that in fact the abandonment of that section might have been necessary to preserve the profession’s legitimacy! As well as nixing the part where the Oath is consecrated by Apollo, etc.
Oh, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that such a rule existed, just that if one did exist, it would be ethical (in the sense of being a rule of professional conduct) and unethical (in a different sense of the word ‘ethical’) at the same time. Contrast the second definition on this page with the others.
Doctors established them in order to preserve the legitimacy of their profession. That’s my understanding, in any case.
Well, many professions have established such rules, and presumably, they did so to make their professions more legitimate, as well as to give their members a guide to behavior their committees considered better.
Maybe I wasn’t either… are we actually disagreeing here? Heh.
it would be ethical (in the sense of being a rule of professional conduct) and unethical (in a different sense of the word ‘ethical’) at the same time. . . [link to some definitions]
I know the word is used in the sense of definitions 1 and 3. What I’m saying is that I think it’s more interesting to forget the moral usage altogether, and just stick with saying that ethics is #2, because when you think about it they are very distinct concepts.
Actually, that’s a different use of the word ethics: the rules of conduct for a group or profession. You can meaningfully say that following the rules of medical ethics is unethical and not to anyone’s benefit.
Can you give an example?
An example of what? My point was that that sentence is not a contradiction, because “ethics” in that particular definition just means following established rules of conduct, which does not necessarily coincide with the individual’s benefit or the group’s benefit.
A rule in medical ethics which is not intended to protect/benefit either the practitioner himself or the purpose of his livelihood.
Doctors established them in order to preserve the legitimacy of their profession. That’s my understanding, in any case.
In some cases it was to enforce a cartel (emphasis mine):
Wow… hadn’t read the original, interesting. Still, that is the Oath as it was 2k years ago, and as such it is no longer part of established medical ethics. I think it’s plausible that in fact the abandonment of that section might have been necessary to preserve the profession’s legitimacy! As well as nixing the part where the Oath is consecrated by Apollo, etc.
Oh, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that such a rule existed, just that if one did exist, it would be ethical (in the sense of being a rule of professional conduct) and unethical (in a different sense of the word ‘ethical’) at the same time. Contrast the second definition on this page with the others.
Well, many professions have established such rules, and presumably, they did so to make their professions more legitimate, as well as to give their members a guide to behavior their committees considered better.
Maybe I wasn’t either… are we actually disagreeing here? Heh.
I know the word is used in the sense of definitions 1 and 3. What I’m saying is that I think it’s more interesting to forget the moral usage altogether, and just stick with saying that ethics is #2, because when you think about it they are very distinct concepts.
It’s worth teasing out a few different definitions. There are at least four distinct concepts:
Rules of professional conduct, which do not necessarily relate to doing the right thing or anyone’s benefit at all
A normative prescription
Rules for the individual’s benefit
Rules for the group’s benefit