The thesis defends the position that the meaning of the precepts of professional ethics can be determined, first, distinctively (by establishing the limits of its relationship and interaction with other concepts close in content), that is, as different from the meaning of the norm of professional morality and general morality; secondly, functionally, based on the purpose (mission) of the norms of professional ethics of a certain specialist for the implementation of the spheres of activity of a certain institution and for the life of society as a whole. Thirdly, structurally, that is, through the internal content of professional ethics as a phenomenon.
The author emphasizes that a specific rule of law, not a specific code, is the key structural and functional unit of professional ethics. The unity of the content of ethical and legal norms is because professional ethics regulates professional morality by similar means, with the help of which legal norms arise, in particular, by enshrining them in normative prescriptions with precise (which should tend to an unambiguous interpretation) wording. However, in law, responsibility is associated with the law-abiding person as a citizen. In contrast, from the point of view of ethics, responsibility is related to the professionalism of the same person. That is why the essence of professional and ethical standards is not so much in the form of their consolidation (code, rules, etc.) but in the content of a certain ethical and legal norm.
It is argued that the existing debate in scientific circles and among practitioners regarding the binding nature of the prescriptions of codes of professional ethics has an important scientific and applied significance since the further possibility/impossibility of prosecution for violating such prescriptions will depend on its solution. Codes of professional ethics assets of professional ethical standards of a certain activity should be mandatory and be provided with the possibility of applying coercive measures, particularly disciplinary measures. However, there is a huge “but” in this context because nowadays, in practice, there is a significant problem when under the understanding of such a misdemeanor as a “violation of the rules of professional ethics”, so to speak, any act of an employee is artificially “subsumed”, because often in court disputes it is possible to meet when such a violation is called a violation of the oath, and simply not fulfilling the job description, and certain misdemeanors in everyday life, which speaks only of one thing – the evaluative nature of the same professional standards, the too descriptive formulation of their prescriptions, which gives a wide field of possibilities to call any which act of a person as a violation of professional standards.
The author emphasizes that another problem of all codes or rules of professional ethics is those subjects who develop and approve them, which again leads to the problem of the imperativeness of the prescriptions of such codes or rules. In most cases, codes of professional ethics are developed and approved by associations of a specific professional community or even by certain public councils. Here, a fair question arises: Can such organizations actually take on the functions of a rule-maker? On the one hand, it seems that it is the specialized body that knows the specifics and problems of a particular professional activity and thus has the right to outline, so to speak, the “framework” of professional ethics, but on the other hand, even being at the center of a particular activity, having developed specific rules, or does this automatically make them mandatory at the national level? It seems this is possible only at the local level, within the limits of a specific body, but not for the entire institution at the national level.
Professional ethics codes (rules, etc.) can be binding only locally and must be developed internally in each organization or institution. Those codes that exist today are very subjective in nature and do not contain the clarity and unequivocalness of their prescriptions, which makes them not equally understandable for everyone, which provokes the fact that a bunch of different interpretations and explanations of the same rules appear (for example, in the case of prosecutors) – when there is a code on 11 pages of text, and its explanation on 191 pages of text – then what to do with it? What should be applied – the code or the clarification? After all, such clarifications significantly expand the content of the code’s prescriptions, going beyond the content of the code, which is unacceptable. You cannot adopt a certain code, make it mandatory, and then explain a hundred more of its prescriptions and make them mandatory – this is the way to nowhere; moreover, it creates “pressure” on employees.
