Law
states what a person must do, some laws are based on ethical precepts. Ethics suggest what a person ought to do.

An
ethical person often chooses to do more than the law requires and less than the
law allows. There
is a big difference between what we have a right to do and what is right to do.

Distinctions
between Law and Ethics

The Legal Ethical Wall       

We should decide how much of our problem lies within the moral or
ethical domain how much lies within the legal or authority-based field. We need
to sort this out to develop an ability to take defensible conclusions.

William
Frankena, while describing the ethical maturation of Socrates, says: 

Ethical
considerations arise when we pass beyond the stage of only considering rules
and legalistic arguments about why we should behave in specific ways. Ethical
considerations are moral philosophy emerges when we begin to think for
ourselves in critical and general terms and achieve a kind of autonomy as moral
agents.

This
is not to say that what is legal and ethical are always in agreement. We can
see in four groups where our ethical dilemmas may exist. And the wall is
between Desirable and undesirable decisions.

1
and 4 are easy to make decisions. However, problems are with 2 and 3. For 2 we hear
people say, "…but it’s not illegal”. In this response, one subjugates
conscience to authority. It is an exercise in ‘buck passing’ in refusing to
take an ethical stance considered correct.

In
3 situations, the decision is illegal. Still, we deem the decision to be
ethical and the law to be wrong- civil disobedience- to stand up for our
ethics—E.g., prophets, Buddha, Martin Luther King, Rosa Park’s mother, Teresa.
Several journalists have refused to reveal the names of their sources to
testify in the courts- in essence violating legal mandates but upholding
personal and professional principles.

Codes
of Ethics

It
may be defined as a statement of beliefs, principles, and acceptable behavior
of people in a common vocation. The statement or code is normally published,
often displayed, and commonly referenced as a definition of peer-group. A
significant characteristic of the code of ethics is that:

• It
  is unenforceable in court.
• It
  is not defined by a legislative body or the subject of litigation in a judicial
  body.
• Some
  peer groups include a procedure for internal punishment of violators, as in the
  denying of a doctor or lawyer the right to practice in a hospital or a court.
  But there is no enforcement mechanism in the ethics codes of many peer groups.
• Violators
  of codes are often ignored or criticized by their peers in assembly.
• Codes
  of ethics are supposed to act as the professional’s conscience, of the
  organization, of the enterprise.
• Think
  of codes as part of the middle ground between law on the one hand and
  internalized societal blues (or personal values) on the other.
• Codes
  can be where formal social and economic sanctions or a social group (a
  profession, an industry, a firm, a company) seek to ensure conformity by
  defining acceptable standards of behavior and penalizing defiance.

Purposes
of codes

Association
and professional groups have several reasons to write and revise their codes of
ethics.

1. A
   good code contains ideas that justify and rationalize a profession’s activities
   to a larger society, including governments- especially during times of
   diminished credibility and intensified public scrutiny.
2. Codes
   also provide education. A good code promotes ethical thought and behavior
   within a profession. This is especially important for newcomers, who may not know
   the complexity of the craft’s moral landmines. But it also helps veterans with
   pressures from peers, higher-ups, and outsiders to violate a profession’s
   values and norms.
3. Codes
   that take their education function seriously seek to highlight and anticipate
   ethical dilemmas, so it is unnecessary to reinvent a decision-making process
   with each new dilemma.
4. Codes
   inspire us about our unique roles and responsibilities. They make each of us
   custodians of our profession’s values and behaviors, and they beckon us to
   emulate the best of our profession.
5. They
   promote front-end, proactive decision-making that occurs before our decision
   ‘go public.’

If
codes don’t serve these purposes, it may be little more than an impotent façade
hanging on the office walls.

Poorly
constructed codes falsely imply that the profession has agreed upon a uniform
set of ethical practices, or they suggest that all the important questions have
been settled once and for all.

Drafting,
reconsidering, and revising codes should encourage further conversation within
the field and better dialogue with the public and other stakeholders. And then,
after a couple of years, it is probably helpful to tear up the code and start
over if only because the process of drafting a code of ethics is intellectually
invigorating and pragmatically cathartic.

So
if we want to be taken seriously as ethical communicators, we need codes that
mean something to practitioners and the general public.

If
we want to be ethical, we need to articulate our ideas, remind ourselves and
others of our unique contributions to the world’s civic health, and then act
accordingly.

If
we want to continue to claim freedoms to communicate and advocate, then we
should accept concomitant responsibilities.

Two
types of codes

1. Codes
   of minimal standards
2. Codes
   of ideal expectations or ‘aspirational’ codes

1. Codes
of minimal standards

The
fundamental assumption of minimal standards codes implies that, at worst,
people for whom the codes were drafted are morally primitive or at least
inherently flawed; that they lack independent judgment and need authority
figures to lead them through the decision-making process; that they respond
best to threats and fear of punishment; that their natural inclination is to
abuse others and misuse their power.

A
more generous assessment is merely to say that such codes are written for the
professionally uninformed assessment who would be better served by a good
textbook or course in their profession’s history and principles than be a
legalistic litany.

• They
  spell out, in sometimes excruciating detail, the hard and fast rules of the
  game.
• They
  typically go on-page. They list every imaginable form for behavior their
  authors find reprehensible.
• They
  are filled with a legalistic "thou shall not’s” list of sins that morally
  immature individuals might be tempted to commit.
• If
  we violate a code’s minimal standards, we are blameworthy, and we deserve to be
  disciplined.
• But
  just because we uphold those minimal standards does not mean we are morally
  praiseworthy because they are bottom lines below which we should not fall. For
  instance, we should not expect to be rewarded for not plagiarizing or not
  abusing a client, but codes feel free to offer penalties or people who drop
  below the line.

2. Codes
of ideal expectations

• Codes
  of ideal expectations reflect a different universe.
• Their
  lofty and abstract standards indicate faith in one’s fellow beings, a
  recognition that inherently decent people are trying to do better, and a sense
  that gentle reminders of our lofty goals are more effective means of achieving
  an ethical society that is base-level , punishment oriented rules and
  guidelines. 
• Codes
  of ideal expectations acknowledge our imperfections and generally offer
  positive ” thou shall” suggestions that will make the world a better
  place.
• Such
  aspirational codes include lofty and sometimes abstract statements of
  expectations.
• Followers
  of such codes strive to reach the ideal standards set forth.
• Practitioners
  are not punished for not achieving those ideals any more than show dogs or
  horses or painters or journalists are you.
• Not
  punished for not winning ‘ best-of-show competitions- or not being awarded
  Pulitzer prizes, for not achieving perfection.
• An
  inspirational code can broadly define the excellent communicator- the virtuous
  communicator, the committed communicator, the noble communicator.
• It
  accepts yet transcends the minimal code, acknowledging its failings while
  attempting to provide exemplars and guidance for the resolution of hard cases.