Is there a difference between behavior and action? What are the implications of the fact that this value is dynamic? These are some of the first questions that came to my mind.

Although I am waiting for answers, I am glad to receive questions, as well. I think there is no difference between behavior and action. The dynamic character of any action implies that no codes or rules of conduct could be strictly defined and imposed to humans.

For me there is a difference between the professed values and forms of their implementation. Values are not the results of the decisions but are the context in which they are making. Therefore, there are many ways to articulate any value under specific conditions, but this value is belonging (common) for many societies / cultures.

To me ethics is about the means, actions and its impact on society. Every action of human beings has positive and negative results. When negative effects are more than positive effects, everybody starts discussing about ethics. No one is perfect in this world, but definitely one can work on continuous improvement. So ethics is an evolving subject.

In the context of religion, ethics mean how to become pious person to enter paradise (ends) by using our resource in this world (means). Ethics also as part of religion that religion consist of credo, ritual (ritus) and ethics.

Science without ethics is like body without soul. We can see recently that science made humanity in paradox and dilemma eventually humanity in crisis. are we still as human or as animal rational only if we don't care about ethics?

To my mind, ethics is nether philosophy nor science, it is the very basis of civilized existence. Ethics is the result of interaction of self and judgmental morality, which is shaped by education, cultural and social background..Ethics is influenced by value system which is the outcome of pragmatism and realization of self, thus making human existence precious.Ethics is important in every sphere of life.

Your very question is ethical in nature, asking what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.'

In terms of the history of philosophy ethics seems to be fairly central. Socrates is primarily concerned with ethics. Plato is largely concerned with ethics. Aristotle writes both the Eudemian and the Nicomachean Ethics. Seemingly philosophy of old is concerned with the Summum Bonum and that is impossible to identify without entering into the realm of ethics. It is an ancient formulation to say that philosophy deals with Ethics, Metaphysics, and Epistemology. Inasmuch as we are the "political animal" we cannot address issues about the good life without speaking in terms of ethics because we are, in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, the "ultra-social" higher order mammal. To define a good life and speak of philosophia, the love of wisdom, we must address our interactions with our fellow political animals. This is an inescapable necessity. Thus, though I may be biased here, ethics is at the core of the discipline of philosophy. When it is at its best it is all about prudentia or practical wisdom. In a world devoid of Ethics, Metaphysics and Epistemology haven't much practical value.

Ethics is a vital part not just of philosophy but also of living. In modern professional education its a vital part of the syllabus but when it comes to practice students are advised to let it remain as a subject not for practice. A highly positioned boss who always comes to the office late and bends the rule preaches ethics,loyalty and punctuality to his staff members without shame. This is how ethics have been thrown into the wind when it comes to practice

As far as I'm concerned, I may synthesize what I ‘ve learned by saying that philosophers had pursued, initially, two different objectives in formulating their ethical canons, at times investigated jointly. On one side they have suggested to commend in the utmost open and argued manner the set of values that they considered most appropriate for the moral behavior of man. On the other side they aimed at a purely speculative understanding of the human moral behavior, taking care not so much to praise commitments, but rather to reconstruct the motivations and ways of reasoning being delineated in an ethical behavior. In the twentieth century it has become customary to differentiate clearly between these two lines of investigation while arguing on morality, considering ethics a a predominantly practical philosophy, committed to the defense of certain values, and meta-ethics as a philosophy pursuing exclusively theoretical and cognitive ends. Some empirical disciplines may be included within meta-ethics, such as psychology and sociology, only for that part of the investigation that had as its object the ethical domain of human life. It has been considered as pertaining to the meta-ethical philosophy the study of the logic and meaning of the terms used in morality.

Ethics, as long as it describes, studies and explicates specific phenomena of character, is to be considered a science. However, in so far as it has to do with the ‘volitional’ side of man, it retains something ‘unmethodical’ which prevents it from being labeled an exact science. Moreover, being looked upon as suggesting norms of life in its various social relationships, it is intended to be a ‘normative’ science, that is a prescriptive one. The epistemic specificity of ethics consists in ‘valutativity’ that can be summarized as the need - to be established now and then - to make use of values in order to render decisions possible about facts that encompass values. The ‘valutativity’ is attributable to Philosophy, namely to a reason of a superior order, the one who knows how to discern unity and differences in every situation, truth and falsity, authenticity and forgery, effectiveness and ineffectiveness in agreement with the possibility of selecting a particular ethical attitude and not a different one. Since there is no ideal or group of ideals that scientific analysis can demonstrate as 'right' or 'wrong', then there can be no universal ethics. It is to be remarked that this character of ethics cannot be demonstrated empirically because it is of a critical-philosophical order and has to start from the analysis of introspective processes, not always obvious and conscious, such as the internal upsurge of questions of ‘good and evil’. And the specification of ‘valutativity’ of moral statements comes only from within these processes.

It has to be acknowledged that some authors are inclined to regard Ethics more as an ‘art’ rather than a science since it tries to direct human conduct by guidance and warnings. M. Pagliucci in his historical summary of the debate on the connections between ethics and science highlights its background by pointing out that the discussion occurred “within the framework of continuity vs. discontinuity theories”. In the same paper he had the opportunity to present his contribution to the debate through the proposal of a third view, named ‘quasi-continuity’. (M. Pagliucci, ‘Zygon’ 2003, 38, 4, 871-894). Personally, I’d not forget the relationship of ethics with ‘art’; however, a discussion on this point is beyond the scope of the present comment.

At the moment, I’d rather remark that science, starting from accepting its responsibilities, limits and fallibility and thus entering the ethical dimension of its concepts becomes related to systemics, which understands science and ethics as sub-systems of the global or socio-cultural one. Now, I wish to underline what I believe to be a general, new characteristic of sciences that are no longer restricted at looking to existing ‘things’, but they ‘produce’ new ones. Their ‘cognitive’ purpose has changed in ‘doing’ and their ‘cognitive content’ into ‘doing for knowledge’. This inseparable link ‘in doing for knowing’ goes beyond the old concepts of pure and neutral science, and submit scientific knowledge to the rules for ‘doing’, that is to prescription or norms for acting. So, the problem is not to pronounce or not value judgments, but in knowing under what values (or pseudo-values) anyone is acting. The subject of the actions are not sciences in an abstract sense, but the scientific community in practice, that is individuals subject to ethical and moral responsibilities.