- Lying is done in the weak, anti-life Fear mode; the universe does not support this mode!
Life is intended to be done in the powerful pro-life mode of things like Love, which the universe strongly supports.
There is no such thing as an ethical liar; but much of society will tell you differently. Those components of society survive in the weak modes of Fear, using competition with other humans as opposed to competition with the earlier, less-evolved versions of ourselves.
Choose carefully; the universe assists those who choose anti-life modes speed along their way to self-destruction!
’Tis way better to have the universe on your side and having your back, bringing you more powerful, pro-life things like Love and true abundance!
Or, take on the whole universe and arrogantly expect to win! LoL! Bye, bye!
- Easy. Say a doctor or lawyer each subscribe to one and only one code of ethics each: the professional ethics of their respective professions. Say both are scrupulous shining exemplars in every particular of their respective ethical codes. Those codes include certain obligations to truth, accuracy, disclosure etc. and they each fulfill these to the letter, spirit and above and beyond! These two pros meet or exceed the requirements of their codes of ethics in every respect.
They are yes: ethical. That’s whether or not they’re liars off-the-job. That is no violation of ethics. The only code of ethics that either is beholden to does not cover it.
Now. This is important. Did you really mean “moral”? Because “ethical” has a valid synonymous sense! A somewhat useless, redundant sense where it means no more and no other than “moral.” If that’s what you meant, answer it on your own morality please. All such conflicts are demonstrable where they exist, but you would need to make that case.
If what you meant is ethical: the useful, distinct sense of ethics, then it doesn’t exist without a code. And nothing can be called unethical except what violates the code. Everything else is an outside concern.
The useful, distinct sense of ethics: ethics is a code of right conduct adopted by like-minded (i.e. philosophical ethics) or like-purposed (e.g. professional ethics) individuals.
Ethics is voluntary: opt-in. In the case of professional ethics, those entering a field with a mandatory code of ethics know what they’re getting into. It is voluntary that they enter the field.
Ethics is a higher standard. No one is automatically bound by ethics, no one should be, no one needs to be: that’s what “higher standard” means. Doesn’t apply to all. Only those who see the purpose (job or personal reasons). Only who binds self is bound. Nobody else has to observe these codes (there are thousands of them!). If a given act violates no code of ethics to which one has bound oneself: the act is not unethical.
For the standard which is not higher, for the code of conduct considered involuntary of compliance, applicable to all: see law.
One other minor sense of ethics: Ethics is the academic of philosophical study of morality.
That doesn’t come in here. Academic/philosophical ethics lays out no code of behavior. It studies the theory and basis for such schemes and systems.
So our 100% ethical doctor and lawyer may cheat on their spouses and lie about it – and yet be ethical, where their codes of ethics do not happen to cover this. BONUS: the doctor and lawyer may be cheating on their spouses WITH EACH OTHER!
It doesn’t come anywhere into it. Ethics is irrelevant to any act that code of ethics does not cover.
So what though? Each is still a cheater and a liar. Would “unethical” really add boom or sting to these known things?
Feel free to call them immoral if you want. If you call them “unethical” though, you’d best either A) be able to produce the code of ethics they’ve sworn to, and show which provision their behavior violates, or B) be prepared to have everyone grimace indulgently at you, and pat-pat you on the head.
Because people who use “ethical” when all they really mean is “moral,” when they have nothing hard, no basis objectively laid-out (the code), no definite and inarguable violation – they probably don’t even know the differences between morals and ethics! But they still think ethics “sounds better.” You gotta go easy on them. They are by degrees either moral imbeciles or ethical incompetents. They want to talk right and wrong and be taken seriously. They clearly can’t tell what they’re doing. Mercy is indicated. Charity is indicated.
Sure. You can be 100% ethical and yet be a liar, if the specific code of ethics doesn’t cover that. I wouldn’t call it moral – what do you think, though? Would you call it moral?
It’s certainly not honest.
Which is really the only call we need to make. We know what “liar” means. It’s not fancy. If somebody’s a “liar,” and we say “but they’re ethical!” – who cares? Ethics doesn’t exonerate that. Ethics doesn’t come into it. The only way they could possibly BE ethical as a liar is if their code doesn’t cover that. Which means the code’s irrelevant to their lying.
So who cares? “Ethical” would be a totally irrelevant thing about them, and they’d still be every bit as much a liar. Their ethicality doesn’t ameliorate their liarhood one-one-thousandth of a toot.
Who thinks compliance to an ethics that allows lies makes it any better to be a liar?
Ethics doesn’t excuse anything. All ethics does is set its own higher bar on some specific things. As needed, for the purposes of that code and its adherents.