An employee refuses to follow a directive from their management because it conflicts with their beliefs. Their colleague, on the other hand, complies by citing internal regulations. Both are right, but not on the same grounds. Ethics and professional conduct coexist in the workplace, and the confusion between the two generates concrete tensions, from crisis meetings to disciplinary procedures.
Deontological obligation and medical AI: a recent case study
The medical sector illustrates the boundary between these two concepts well. Since the decree of July 27, 2026, the French Code of Medical Ethics includes a new article (R.4127-13-1 of the Public Health Code) dedicated to the use of artificial intelligence and digital tools. This text imposes on doctors security and confidentiality precautions for health data when using devices based on algorithms.
In practice, a doctor using an AI assistant during a consultation must verify the reliability of the tool, ensure patient data confidentiality, and follow the recommendations of the professional bodies. The use of AI does not relieve them of their professional responsibility. According to MACSF, this reform establishes an obligation of vigilance and adherence to guidelines for any use of algorithmic medical devices.
This touches on the heart of the matter: the deontological rule (the article of the code) sets a binding framework. Ethical reflection begins when the doctor questions whether they should use this tool, given that the training data of the algorithm raises bias concerns. To understand the difference between ethics and deontology, this medical case is telling: deontology states what one must do, ethics questions what one should do.
Professional ethics: personal values versus collective rules
Ethics comes from the Greek êthos, which refers to character and way of being. In a professional context, it denotes personal reflection on what is right or wrong, just or unjust. Ethics is based on individual judgment, not on an imposed text.
In practice, a social worker faced with a situation of abuse may feel a conflict between professional secrecy (deontological rule) and their conviction that authorities must be alerted immediately (ethical stance). The flash mission of the National Assembly on violence in the medical field has also made recommendations to strengthen reporting obligations, indicating that the boundary between these two realms is constantly shifting.
Ethical practices vary from one professional to another. Two lawyers may apply the same deontological rules while holding opposing ethical positions regarding the defense of certain clients. Feedback on this point varies according to professional orders and corporate cultures.
Three criteria to distinguish an ethical question from a deontological obligation
- The source: a deontological obligation is written in a code or professional regulation, adopted by a recognized order or body. An ethical question arises from personal reflection in a given situation.
- The sanction: violating a deontological rule exposes one to disciplinary action (warning, expulsion). A questionable ethical choice does not trigger formal proceedings but may affect trust within a team.
- The evolution: deontology changes through decree or vote of a body, while ethical convictions evolve with experience, social context, and public debates.
Code of ethics in the workplace: when the rule is not enough
Many organizations draft an internal code of ethics. It includes rules on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, social media use, or communication with clients. These documents serve as operational guidelines.
The problem arises when the code does not cover a new situation. A communications manager faced with a request to disseminate misleading information on social media may not always find an answer in the regulations. This is where ethics takes over as a decision-making tool.
In the advertising sector, the ARPP (Professional Advertising Regulatory Authority) has illustrated this relationship for several decades. Its role is to set deontological rules for the profession, but edge cases, particularly around algorithmic advertising and generative AI, require ethical reflection that goes beyond existing recommendations.
Deontology and evaluation of professional practices
During an internal evaluation, compliance with deontological rules is measured: are procedures followed, are conflict of interest declarations up to date, are processing times met? The deontological evaluation focuses on verifiable facts.
Ethical evaluation is more delicate. It concerns the quality of reasoning, consideration of stakeholders, and proportionality of decisions. It cannot be reduced to a checklist. This is why some professions, such as auditors, establish ethics committees separate from disciplinary bodies.
Morality, ethics, and deontology: not to be confused
These three terms are often used interchangeably. They are not. Morality refers to the norms of a social group at a given time, to duties in service of the good. Ethics is a reflection on the values that underpin practices. Deontology encompasses the rules that a profession sets for itself or that are imposed on it.
- Morality says: “one must be honest” (general principle).
- Deontology says: “the professional must declare any conflict of interest within 48 hours” (specific rule).
- Ethics asks: “in this specific situation, does declaring this conflict of interest truly protect the client or does it serve as an alibi?” (questioning).
This gradation, from legal norm to professional rule to personal value, structures decision-making in regulated professions. Confusing these three levels amounts to applying a protocol where reflection is needed, or improvising where a framework already exists.
A professional who masters this distinction gains autonomy. When faced with a dilemma, they first identify whether a deontological rule applies. If so, they follow it, unless it conflicts with a higher legal obligation. If no rule covers the situation, their ethical reflection takes over, supported by the principles of their profession and their own values.
It is this concrete and daily articulation that makes the difference between a practitioner who follows directives and a professional who exercises their judgment.
