eth·ics

noun

plural noun: ethics; noun: ethics

1. 1.

   moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

To me, someone with ethical standards has a firm set of principles that they believe in and will act on, regardless of the situation.  Someone with firm ethical standards will not shift or hide what they believe is right or wrong depending on who they are around or what kind of impression they are trying to make.  This is why, regardless of how I feel about his policy ideas or political affiliation, I believe that Senator Bernie Sanders has, hands down, the strongest set of ethical standards of anyone I have seen running for public office basically ever.  In 2002, he was publically vocal against invading Iraq.  In the 1960s, Senator Sanders marched for civil rights.  As a mayor in Burlington, Sanders supported the city's first pride parade in the '80s and as a senator voted against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the '90s, proving his very consistent attitude and stance on equal rights regardless of sexuality- Instead of flip-flopping on the issue when it was beneficial for the vote.  Regardless of how you feel about his policies regarding economics, military, etc...I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone with the kind of consistency in a track record that he has.

ethical relativism definition

In ethics, the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period.

-The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

1. situation ethics definition 
2. 
   
3. A system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles —called also situational ethics
4. -Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In a lot of ways, I think that those two types of ethical code are actually useful for anyone in power to have.  When the stake of your country is on the line, I believe that at times you need to look at the situation contextually and make a decision based on the wellbeing of your state, your nation, etc.  This is probably a useful outlook usually for a political leader.  However, I do not think that it is useful to be so swayed by situation that you do not have a strong enough moral compass to have true convictions about what is right and wrong.  Although I believe that sometimes, unfortunately, bad things need to happen to justify the means (including, unfortunately, sometimes people die at war) Ultimately, I believe that if you have a strong moral compass and idea of what is right and wrong and let that be your guide, you're going to be the most effective ruler.  There is no hard and fast rule about when you need to be situationally ethical, I just think that knowing when you need to bend is one thing that if you're cut out to rule, you'll be intuitive about...and this is also why many people are certainly not cut out to lead!

As far as ethical relativism, I think the times you see this strongly are actually times like now- in the middle of campaign season.  This is when politicians, rulers, etc, really seem to mold their beliefs to match the prevailing views of the public.  (A good example would be Hillary Clinton's support of the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the early 2000s and her complete and totally support of equal rights now, at a time when the public opinion has already shifted greatly on this issue.) Unlike situational ethics, which I believe has it's merits, ethical relativism I believe is a cop-out on thinking for yourself.  It is a cop-out on individualistic thinking and progression in our society and I see very little use as a leader in this type of thinking, except as a way to earn the trust and support of a society, as you see during campaigning.