Are Ethics part of our purview?

Question

We've collected a fair amount of ethics questions. In my opinion "ethics" in general is too subjective and distant from a "real" problem to be an answerable question; everyone has an opinion, but no one has an answer. Often the "real" problem has more to do with what's a smart thing to do or what looks good to others; I don't particularly feel that's a good definition of Ethics, and I'm not sure the dictionary definition of Ethics fits with anything answerable (constructively).

To what extent are ethics questions answerable and within our scope?

Answer 1

In many cases, the ethics questions seem to have more than one dimension to them. Take, for instance, the question Should I tell my employer I'm in school?

This person seemed to be asking about this from an ethical perspective, but I answered it from a logistical and strategic perspective instead, focusing on the possible consequences of each option rather than whether or not it's right or wrong.

As long as the questions have enough detail to where they can be answered from a strategic view or focusing on consequences, then I don't personally see a problem with the question.

To clarify what I mean by consequences, I mean will someone be harmed by action X or Y, not necessarily will the op be harmed or punished, although that could be included as well.

Something doesn't necessarily have to be illegal for there to be a consequence, especially if the action causes people to distrust you, hurts their business, or somehow influences someone else to do something harmful that they otherwise wouldn't.

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

I don't think ethics is within our purview. Unfortunately, it depends on the ethics of two different people. One of those people we have access to, although in many cases we can assume they're looking for validation for a decision they want to make (and have thus ethically justified to themselves). But we don't have access to the other.

The problem here is that a wrong answer can have serious consequences for the person we're advising.

I have worked for companies where emailing in one morning and saying "I feel a bit rough, I'm going to work from home today" is considered unethical. It isn't at my current company. However, if you were to work here for about a year and leave, you'd never get offered another job here. A year wasn't unusual at my previous company.

My point being that it's not cultural (although that does have a bearing), it's not about which company is more progressive. Every company has different things they call unethical and I've been surprised many times in my career.

Again, if we give bad advice on these things, we could cause someone a serious problem. If I asked if it was ok to leave a company after a year, you might well say yes because, in most companies, it's not a bridge-burning issue. But it would cause a lot of ill-feeling that you didn't warn me about. Cause how could you?

Answer 3

I think constructive questions about acting ethically in compliance of a policy or directive in the future should be on topic. These are real pitfalls of the workplace and we can provide good answers to help a person deal with them.

Questions asking us to judge the ethics of an action that has already taken place should be considered not constructive since the action can not be undone.

Questions asking us to judge the ethics of a policy should be closed because they are not constructive.

Answer 4

My original answer is already voted up so I did not want to add this part:

I think we should disallow the ethics tag. It is a meta tag, and since questions that are purely about ethics (especially ethics theory) are off topic here, I suggest we disallow the tag.

We could provide a warning to users that while questions about applied ethics in the workplace may be on topic it may be preferable to ask questions about ethics on the Philosophy SE.

Answer 5

Ethics are a very valid workplace issue. I can see there's a fear that questions with an ethical component might generate argument and noise rather than constructive debate, but that can be resolved through moderation.

Consider that part of the point of a professional code of ethics is to provide consistent and carefully considered answers to difficult moral questions without requiring the individual to conduct their own moral inquiry. Firstly, that surely gives us a model for our own approach to ethical issues; discuss them in practical workplace terms, rather than as articles of religious faith. Secondly, it indicates a serious problem if we ban ethical debate; do we exclude all discussion of ethical codes of conduct, despite their being a key element of some professions? Or do we include only questions regarding recognised professional codes (and then fight endless turf wars over inconsistencies and what should be recognised or not)?

If this truly becomes a problem issue, we can revisit it. I don't see a reason to exclude this area for now.