RE: ethics [formerly " interview and..."]

["Gresham, Kathleen 000" <Gresham -dot- Kathleen -at- corp -dot- sysco -dot- com>]

Michele

I didn't write what you quoted below. Andrew wrote that, and I was quoting him. Sorry for any confusion. 

I just looked up the word and posted the definitions. 

I agree with you.

Kathleen

-----Original Message-----
From: Michele Davis [mailto:michele -at- krautgrrl -dot- com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:35 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: Re: ethics [formerly " interview and..."]



My two cents on the ethical debate given the below reference is that a 
friend of mine is a lawyer, she is asked to throw out work she's done 
for a client so the Associate she works for can bill more, later on. Her 
specific Associate who runs his own fiefdom is clear that he doesn't 
want perfect work, because if they deliver perfect work then the client 
won't came back, and if they don't come back then the fiefdom cannot 
continue to reap in the money.

He doesn't have a code of ethics spelled out, but this would certainly 
fall into "ethics" because ethics can mean:

The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

Michele

Gresham, Kathleen 000 wrote:

>In the case of business, there really are not any business morals. There are,
>however, ethics. But in order for something to be "unethical" there has to be a
>clear statement of what IS ethical. While we may all agree that lying to
>employees is wrong, it is not, by definition, unethical. Therefore, before you
>fire up the rage against the machine soapbox rants, just keep in mind that just
>because something bothers you or offends your morality, doesn't mean its
>illegal or unethical. 
>