This paper studies constraint hierarchies for ethical norms, which are unwritten and may be relaxed if they conflict with stronger norms. Since such ethical norms are unwritten, initial representations of ethical norms may contain errors. For correcting those errors, this paper examines fundamental revisions on constraint hierarchies for ethical norms. Although some revisions on representations for ethical norms have been suggested, revisions on constraint hierarchies for ethical norms have not been completely investigated. In this paper, we categorize two fundamental types of revisions on such constraint hierarchies, namely preference revision and content revision. We also compare effects of those revisions in the criteria of syntactic and semantic changes, which are common criteria of revisions on legal theories. From the comparison, we found that preference revision tentatively makes lower syntactic changes. However, its computation is intractable, incomplete, and potentially makes a large number of semantic changes. On the other hand, we show that content revision on constraint hierarchies can make a small number of semantic changes. However, the content revision tentatively produce a large number of syntactic changes. This comparison leads to the possibility of optimization between preference revision and content revision, which we think is an interesting future work.