Can Ethics be liquid?

In a world dominated by relativity, where even time and space are variable, there are few absolutes. I've always considered Ethics to be a concrete issue, not tolerant of cultural interpretations or adaptations. Until I discovered that there is such a thing as Liquid Ethics.

In times of liquid careers, liquid relationships, and liquid people, we have Liquid Ethics. Basically, this means that people have decided to adapt Ethics to their personal concepts. So, it's no longer enough to know what Ethics is, but rather what people understand by Ethics.

And, obviously, this changes not only with the individual, but with the moment they're in. Because if Ethics is liquid, it can be shaped according to personal, professional, and even momentary interests.

But no. Anyone who believes that Ethics can be shaped and that it depends on interests or interpretations has misunderstood what Ethics truly is and its raison d'être. There is no such thing as relative or liquid Ethics, just as there is no such thing as half-truth. Or half-pregnancy. Ethics is not Schrödinger's Cat, which can be both alive and dead. It cannot be both right and wrong, true and false, universal and individual.

Perhaps the problem lies in the many definitions of Ethics, which consider it a set of values ​​of a group or individual. In a philosophical context, I understand that ethics, with a lowercase e, is this set, expressing these individual or group values ​​and can, therefore, be more or less evolved, correct, or positive. But Ethics, which comes from Ethos, Character, does not allow this inflection. A questionable character is not character, it is a lack of it.

Allowing Ethics to be treated as relative is the basis of all the dissensions and flimsy excuses that lead people to act in their own interests. I have discussed this issue with highly educated people and was surprised to find that many of them somewhat accept that ethical concepts are variable and personal.

My argument is simple:

• Is honesty relative? The Bible says that those who are not faithful in little will not be faithful in much. Therefore, honesty is not related to the value in question, even in a religious book.

• Is transparency relative? Is it possible to be transparent without being transparent? Physically or conceptually, this is not possible.

• Is compliance with an agreement understandable? Only if what was agreed upon was poorly agreed upon.

I believe that Ethics, with a capital E, is the central pillar of civilization, especially in business. Doing business without it is not sustainable. It is not possible to maintain business based on variable positions, individual concepts, or decisions that vary with cultural or personal factors.

Therefore, I do not believe in liquid Ethics, just as I do not believe in liquid character. In a world with so many questionable or relative concepts, it is good to make it clear that your principles do not yield to convenience.