The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48:

Ethics \Eth"ics\ ([e^]th"[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. ['e]thique. See
   Ethic.]
   The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn
   from this science; a particular system of principles and
   rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of
   practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as,
   political or social ethics; medical ethics.
   [1913 Webster]

         The completeness and consistency of its morality is the
         peculiar praise of the ethics which the Bible has
         taught.                                  --I. Taylor.
   [1913 Webster]

WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006):

ethics
    n 1: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical
         motive, ethics, morals, morality]
    2: the philosophical study of moral values and rules [syn:
       ethics, moral philosophy]

Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0:

54 Moby Thesaurus words for "ethics":
   aesthetics, allegiance, assigned task, axiology, bounden duty,
   burden, business, call of duty, casuistry, charge, commitment,
   cosmology, dedication, deference, devoir, devotion,
   duties and responsibilities, duty, epistemology, fealty,
   first philosophy, gnosiology, homage, imperative, line of duty,
   logic, loyalty, mental philosophy, metaphysics, mission,
   moral philosophy, must, obligation, ontology, onus, ought,
   phenomenology, philosophastry, philosophic doctrine,
   philosophic system, philosophic theory, philosophical inquiry,
   philosophical speculation, philosophy, place, respect,
   school of philosophy, school of thought, science of being,
   self-imposed duty, sophistry, theory of beauty,
   theory of knowledge, value theory



The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (30 December 2018):

computer ethics
ethics

    Ethics is the field of study that is concerned
   with questions of value, that is, judgments about what human
   behaviour is "good" or "bad".  Ethical judgments are no
   different in the area of computing from those in any other
   area.  Computers raise problems of privacy, ownership, theft,
   and power, to name but a few.

   Computer ethics can be grounded in one of four basic
   world-views: Idealism, Realism, Pragmatism, or Existentialism.
   Idealists believe that reality is basically ideas and that
   ethics therefore involves conforming to ideals.  Realists
   believe that reality is basically nature and that ethics
   therefore involves acting according to what is natural.
   Pragmatists believe that reality is not fixed but is in
   process and that ethics therefore is practical (that is,
   concerned with what will produce socially-desired results).
   Existentialists believe reality is self-defined and that
   ethics therefore is individual (that is, concerned only with
   one's own conscience).  Idealism and Realism can be considered
   ABSOLUTIST worldviews because they are based on something
   fixed (that is, ideas or nature, respectively).  Pragmatism
   and Existentialism can be considered RELATIVIST worldviews
   because they are based or something relational (that is,
   society or the individual, respectively).

   Thus ethical judgments will vary, depending on the judge's
   world-view.  Some examples:

   First consider theft.  Suppose a university's computer is used
   for sending an e-mail message to a friend or for conducting a
   full-blown private business (billing, payroll, inventory,
   etc.).  The absolutist would say that both activities are
   unethical (while recognising a difference in the amount of
   wrong being done).  A relativist might say that the latter
   activities were wrong because they tied up too much memory and
   slowed down the machine, but the e-mail message wasn't wrong
   because it had no significant effect on operations.

   Next consider privacy.  An instructor uses her account to
   acquire the cumulative grade point average of a student who is
   in a class which she instructs.  She obtained the password for
   this restricted information from someone in the Records Office
   who erroneously thought that she was the student's advisor.
   The absolutist would probably say that the instructor acted
   wrongly, since the only person who is entitled to this
   information is the student and his or her advisor.  The
   relativist would probably ask why the instructor wanted the
   information.  If she replied that she wanted it to be sure
   that her grading of the student was consistent with the
   student's overall academic performance record, the relativist
   might agree that such use was acceptable.

   Finally, consider power.  At a particular university, if a
   professor wants a computer account, all she or he need do is
   request one but a student must obtain faculty sponsorship in
   order to receive an account.  An absolutist (because of a
   proclivity for hierarchical thinking) might not have a problem
   with this divergence in procedure.  A relativist, on the other
   hand, might question what makes the two situations essentially
   different (e.g. are faculty assumed to have more need for
   computers than students?  Are students more likely to cause
   problems than faculty?  Is this a hold-over from the days of
   "in loco parentis"?).

   "Philosophical Bases of Computer Ethics", Professor Robert
   N. Barger (http://nd.edu/~rbarger/metaethics.html).

   Usenet newsgroups: news:bit.listserv.ethics-l,
   news:alt.soc.ethics.

   (1995-10-25)