Now here is a departure from the first principle of true ethics. Here we find ideas of moral wrong and moral right associated with something else than beneficial action. The consequent is, we lose sight of the real basis of morals, and substitute a false one.
Having George W. Bush giving a lecture on business ethics is like having a leper give you a facial, it just doesn't work!
In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.
Football, that's just athletics. But in the business world - doing everything - people are competing. So you need good work ethics, and I think it helped me to develop good work ethics, being in a small town.
Even at school I studied ethics instead of religion.
Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.
Whether gods exist or not, there is no way to get absolute certainty about ethics. Without absolute certainty, what do we do? We do the best we can.
I think the ethics and morals of genetic engineering are very complicated. It intrigues me.
The modern period adds social ethics to religions agenda, for we now realize that social structures are not like laws of nature. They are human creations, so we are responsible for them.
Things change so fast, you can't use 1971 ethics on someone born in 1971.
This House cannot function without an open, accountable, and independent ethics process; and the molestation of that process by the majority is an abuse of power that cannot stand.
I think ethics is always there; it's not always a very thoughtful or reflective ethics.
I don't think there's anything in the compromise that means that there's a clash of ethics.
At the descriptive level, certainly, you would expect different cultures to develop different sorts of ethics and obviously they have; that doesn't mean that you can't think of overarching ethical principles you would want people to follow in all kinds of places.
More often there's a compromise between ethics and expediency.