Talking about morality usually leads many people to the private sphere, where everyone can have their own rules or standards of conduct. There, he is free to choose the ends that are worth pursuing and the appropriate means to guide his life according to his personal opinion; and from there, it is easy to distinguish this private sphere from the public, where there is also a morality but which has mainly to do with the system of rules by which we govern our coexistence. With rules that are not always written, but which we agree to respect.
One is easily divided, therefore, between a set of rules to follow or comply with in the public sphere - see codes of ethics in the various professions, civic laws or procedures guaranteeing fair or equitable treatment - and a personal way of behaving when “off duty”. Only in the latter can I really be myself, “take a break” from the rules and follow my own criteria of moral behavior. This is what we might call the subjective morality of the private sphere as opposed to the objective ethics of the public sphere.
Ethics of the third person
In a similar line of thought, there are authors who distinguish between third-person ethics, of a more “juridical” nature, where ethical behavior is discussed from normative and external criteria; and first-person ethics, which respond to the subjective vision that each person has of his or her own acts. In the third-person perspective, facts and events are judged and even some intentionality in behaviors can be objectively judged. If I have followed procedure, then I have acted well; if I do not comply with the laws, I am acting badly. In the first-person perspective, on the other hand, what counts are the intentions and the feelings of goodness or badness with which I have performed the action.
However, there is no self-imposed ethics of facts. Facts, however objective they may seem, need to be interpreted; and this interpretation has to be made by subjects outside the individuals involved in the events. On the other hand, feelings and intentions, however subjective they may seem, are not merely internal but tend to be communicated. Happiness, sadness or anger do not belong to the merely private or subjective.
Ethics and morality, understood as the objective and subjective poles of our behavior, are not well understood without a third pole, the intersubjective, which is essential to understand the proper perspective of morality. A second-person perspective is needed, and this can be seen in the fact that we admire the behavior of certain people or even propose them as models of moral behavior.
Morality is learned and exercised, above all, in the second person, seeing the behavior of other people and acting in a way that can be a reference for others. However, without leaving aside neither the teaching of ethical norms cultivated by the good deeds of those who preceded us, nor the inner fine-tuning that acts as a compass, to tell me that perhaps I have not behaved so well when I lacked rectitude of intention, even if my external behavior was impeccable.
