Arguments in favour and against a code of ethics for historians

Traditional attitudes of historians towards professional ethics are laconic. Should they encourage the drafting of codes that explicitly detail ethical principles? I look into the advantages and disadvantages of such professional codes. A first question that arises is whether allied branches of scholarship and historians abroad use codes of ethics. Allied branches of scholarship by far preceded the historical sciences in codifying professional ethics, but today, few national historical associations have a formal code of ethics. A second question concerns the arguments in favour and against a code. There are five arguments against such a code: we do not need one; we already have one; a code is not efficient; a code can be abused; and a code is itself an abuse. Three reasons to adopt a code are then proposed: enhancement of the autonomy of the historical profession; clarification of the foundations and limits of the historical profession; and increased trust of others in the historians' work. In addition, suggestions are given for a new subject, Ethical Questions for Historians, in order to raise ethical awareness in the profession. A good code reduces abuse and yields advantages in terms of understanding, sources, funding, and assignments. With such a code, historians could convincingly argue that history is well taken care of in their hands.