There is a difference between ethics and the law. But that doesn’t mean the two don’t coexist.

Laws are codified rules that spell out what can happen, what should happen, what circumstances might change that and what the consequences are for stepping outside those lines.

But ethics? Ethics are trickier.

They are the morality of our behavior. They are the philosophy of right and wrong — and philosophy is more art and argument than it is science and math. Where the law says what, ethics ask why. But they are linked.

That’s why U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey, wasn’t convicted of corruption charges in 2015 but was still admonished by the Senate ethics committee. That could happen again with his new indictments.

Ethics are what we expect. The law is what we demand. With government, there should be overlap. We should expect that our leaders adhere to the law — especially when they write, interpret or enforce it. But merely not breaking the law isn’t enough. Leaders need to uphold the idea that they do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

This has been quite the week for ethics.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court did what everyone has been talking about for months. The court adopted its first code of ethics — a mere 234 years after it was created. This is ludicrous. The court has spent more than two centuries governed by tradition rather than expectations, despite being the highest body of rule interpreters in the country.

The absence of a code has a cost that surfaced this year in jaw-dropping articles from ProPublica and others about questionable or outright improper ethical and financial breaches by justices including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. While these have been countered with “what about Ruth Bader Ginsburg” retorts, those only serve to underscore that these are not ideological concerns. Every justice should comply with such basic standards.

Still alarming is the statement released with the code, aghast that anyone should think there had been no ethical expectations until this point.

“To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

If this was the unwritten code that was in place all along, typing it up does not give confidence.

Then on Thursday, the House Ethics committee released a damning report on the “overwhelming evidence” of illegal behavior by U.S. Rep. George Santos, R-New York. The first term congressman’s web of apparent deceit and alleged crimes began to unravel even before he was sworn into office in January. He now faces federal charges but has zealously asserted his innocence.

While calling the report a “politicized smear” on social media, Santos later reversed course on his almost belligerent campaign for a second term, saying he would not run for reelection. It’s anyone’s guess what the story will be by the time you read this.

The law is that bribery, lying, fraud, theft and other accusations levied at lawmakers and judges are all crimes that carry heavy penalties. The ethics is that they should know that and so should their colleagues. While the law is the extreme end result, they should be able to police their own behavior accordingly by virtue of earning their positions.

Increasingly, we cannot rely on ethics. All levels of government need sharper lines that divide right from wrong. The problem is it is hard to expect lawmakers to draw them, judges to interpret them and the executive branch to enforce them when the ethics to understand the morality of behavior is becoming a lost art.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)