Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, it is all about making judgement about any moral behaviour. Moral judgment is always about questioning to come to a perfect conclusion. This always includes these four reasoning’s in it, comprehensiveness, coherence, consistence and adequate. If these issues are not considered in a judgement the may not be a moral judgement. In my understanding those four factors can be considered as the criteria’s of judging an issue which has serious consequences towards people or to the environment. Ethics does not include only the right and wrong or the good and bad of an issue, but it also includes the actions or behaviours which makes serious consequence to any living being or to the environment. The consequences of a moral behaviour can harm the environment and the people or it can be a reward for them. Ethics is the art and science of judging a moral behaviour, imagination and creativity are playing a role in planning something in order to prevent something. In Science I have mentioned earlier, comprehensiveness, coherence, consistence and adequate play a major role in order to get a correct judgement. In order to judge a moral behaviour we need all the required information which are related to the issue, also there must be a logical process of inquiring and it should be consistent and appropriate. Violation of ethics is one of the greatest problem at the current situation. It may be visible to some extend and may not be visible also. While we were studying about an argument between Socrates, the classical Greek Athenian philosopher and Callicles on, the value of justice I realised that Socrates had a great ability of tackling his opponent. Socrates had the complete knowledge about what he was talking about and he was following the logical process of argument in proving his side of view. Also he was consistent and adequate to what he was talking. He never went out of topic and his method to prove that his view is correct was, questioning the opponent in a way that the opponent could never refuse to accept what Socrates says. I believe that his way of proving is tricky and wise too, which I will never accept as an ethical conclusion. What I really loved was the way Socrates approach the Sophists who were thinking that injustice is better that justice to make people happy. I think nowadays most of the lawyers are following Sophists’ path to prove that they are arguing for justice while they are standing for something which is wrong actually. Is lying is less harmful than killing? My answer would be the inverse of this question. Because there are many incidents, where a lie has led to conflicts and killings of thousands of people around the world. People might say that killing is much hurting because, it can never be turn back and it even effects a family life, but think about a situation where a civil war starts based on a lie and killed thousands of people and effected their families and social life. Here I am not saying that, killing an innocent person is less harmful, but I would say if someone kills an innocent it is sin. When this decision comes under the law it is a good diction and it will always be less harmful than a lie which could collapse a whole family and the entire society.