Reference: Theoretical Underpinnings of Ethics
Whilst ethics largely implies the consideration for the best interests of things other than yourself, it is not limited to purely that thought - it is an even deeper rabbit hole, laden with the plurality of morals as a result of free thought.
Yet, despite the countenance of so many different 'ways of thoughts', there are many values which are sustained between cultures - such as honesty, integrity, fairness, compassion and openness. This very fact opposes the concept of ethical relativism (that is, that ethics will differ from context to context), making ethical relativism difficult to justify.
Regardless of which moral standpoint that one might fit into, it holds true that one's opinion is not decided on the basis of a vote or statement. Rather, each individual's views are formed (and possibly changed) through that individual's consensus of the political, economical and social landscape around them - and their personal experiences within them.
Kantian ethics describes the principle where "nothing can be considered good except good will", such that it is our duty to take responsibility to act and conduct ourselves in a manner that is 'good' to others.
Millian ethics differs from Kantian ethics in the rationale for action. The rightfulness of an action becomes proportionate to the amount of happiness that comes as a result of that action, and justifies something as ethical if it makes you happy.
As in line with conflict resolution methods - in the presence of an ethical dilemma, consequentially there arises a "winner" and a "loser". For the best interests of all parties, it is often desirable to attempt to dissolve the situation by attempting to turn the problem into a non-ethical problem.