Ethics in Public Administration - Essay Example

Running Head: ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS Ethical Frameworks within Public Administration Literature ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 2 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to discuss the theoretical ethics and their practical application with a particular emphasis on public administration. To meet this purpose I have broadly categorized the discussion into the understanding of ethics, their kinds, the comparison of these kinds, and the practical utility of each of them. To conclude, I have compared the ethical frameworks within both public as well as private administrations citing from well-known sources. Keywords: Ethics, Public Administration, Peter Singer, Preference Utilitarianism, Deontology. ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 3 Ethical Frameworks within Public Administration Literature Definition Of Ethics Ethics comes from the Greek word ethikos which in its root form (ethos) means character or custom. It is commonly described as the study of moral conduct. The term 'moral' as here used covers all conduct which is subject to the judgement of right and wrong. The distinction implied is not between moral and immoral, right and wrong, but between moral and unmoral, i.e., between conduct which has a moral aspect and that which has none. Ethics in Public Administration Ethics in public administration suffers from the absence of a theoretical framework to supply focus, definition, background, and a common frame of reference for the research and practice of ethical administration. There seems to be little disagreement that such a framework is lacking. In 1980, Dwight Waldo described the state of moral and ethical behaviour in public administration as "chaotic" (Waldo, 1980: 100). In 1983, James Bowman stated that "in both practice and theory, the ethical implications of administrative and political conduct remain largely unexplored" (Bowman, 1983a:71). Most recently, John Rohr, in presenting a "state of the discipline" report at a major conference, states that "throughout this report I have stressed the diversity in the ethics field; a diversity that comes close to chaos" (Rohr, 1986a:53). Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is the idea that moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utility, the good to ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 4 be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance. Utilitarianism is described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Therefore, it is also known as "the greatest happiness principle." Preference Utilitarianism Preference utilitarianism is one of the most popular forms of utlilitarianism in contemporary philosophy. Like other utilitarian theorists, preference utilitarians define a morally right action as that which produces the most favourable consequences for the people involved. However, preference utilatairans interpret the best consequences in terms of ;preference satisfaction'. This means that 'good' is described as the satisfaction of each person's individual preferences or desires, and a right action is that which leads to this satisfaction. Since what is good depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad except for the resulting state of mind. Preference utilitarianism therefore can be distinguished by its acknowledgement that every person's experience of satisfaction will be unique. Peter Singer is generally regarded as the leading contemporary advocate of preference utilitarianism. Peter Albert David Singer (1946) specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective. His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. All have an interest in avoiding pain, for instance, but relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities. Not only does his principle justify different treatment for different interests, but it allows different treatment for the same interest when diminishing ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 5 marginal utility is a factor, favouring, for instance, a starving person's interest in food over the same interest of someone who is only slightly hungry. Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". He holds that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties. He favours a 'journey' model of life, which measures the wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey's goals. He requires the idea of an impartial standpoint from which to compare interests. Ethical conduct is justifiable by reasons that go beyond prudence to "something bigger than the individual," addressing a larger audience. Singer thinks this going-beyond identifies moral reasons as "somehow universal". Universalisation leads directly to utilitarianism, Singer argues, on the strength of the thought that one's own interests cannot count more than the interests of others. Criticism Critics point out that Singer's Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is self-defeating. If, considering everyone's interests equally, we find that the best possible outcome comes when we do not consider everyone's interests equally, but rather it comes when we maintain partiality, then this principle forces us to abandon the principle itself. According to this reasoning, being impartial shows that we must be partial. Singer fails to answer questions of why it is rational to act ethically or impartially, instead of in self-interest. There is no fundamental, logical claim that Singer can provide to support his preference utilitarianism, nor any other ethical framework. His preference utilitarianism is essentially founded on a desire for a certain type of the world. ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 6 Deontological Ethics " An action done from the duty has its moral worth, not in purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon: it depends, therefore, not on the realization of the object of the action, but solely on the principle of volition in accordance with which, irrespective of all objects of the faculty of desire, the action has been performed". - Immanuel Kant Deontological Ethics are ethics of duty or principle. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) coined the word "deontology," but his use of it is directly opposite to the current usage inspired by Kant. Some people think the word deontology is a negative form of ontology, which refers to one's idea of basic reality. The de in deontological is not negative, as is often true in English, but is whole with deon, coming from the Greek verb stem deont-, to bind. Deon is also influenced by dei (it is necessary) from dein (to need, want, or lack). Hence, deon refers to that which is binding or needful. It is then a short step to deontology as the knowledge or study of moral obligation or commitment. Doctrines of Kant Bernard Rosen summarizes Kant's views as follows: 1. Consequences (ends attained by actions) are not the determinants of moral obligation. 2. The moral worth of an action (that it is right or the fulfilment of an obligation) is a function of the direct rule (principle of volition or maxim) from which the action is performed. 3. The direct rule must be chosen independently of any desire to achieve an end, or even from any desire regarding the rule itself. 4. The indirect moral rule that determines the direct moral rules cannot have any particular actions or moral rules described within it. ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 7 5. The form of the indirect moral rule is, as stated by Kant," I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal moral law." Consequentialism Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgement about that action. Thus, from a consequential standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means". Consequentialism is often contrasted with deontological moral theories. The latter hold that we have a duty to perform or refrain from certain types of actions and that this duty derives from the nature of the act itself, rather than from the consequences produced by the action. Deontology vs. Utilitarianism In any functioning society, a system of morals must be present to establish what is right and wrong. Nearly everything in a community is at least based on a code of morals: laws, traditions, government policies, and even simple relationship, such as business transactions. Without such a system society would crumble, since daily operations depend so heavily on shared ethics. Emmanuel Kant, advocating absolutism, and John Stuart Mill, who supports utilitarianism, represent two of the most prominent theories. Both Kant and Mill provide noble visions of morality, and centre their thoughts on respectable principles that focus the rest of their works. Kant places great faith in the human mind, particularly its ability to use "pure reason", as opposed to "empirical reason". Any conclusions made through sense experience are termed empirical, whereas a doctrine based on a priori thoughts-using only reason- is termed pure. Empirical philosophy can become subjective, but pure reason is solely objective. For Kant, an objective perspective is required for any consideration of morality. He claims that "everyone must admit that if a law is morally valid... than it must ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 8 carry with it absolute necessity (Kant, p.2)." A moral law, in the eyes of Kant , must be obligatory for all rational men. The rational for the absolute nature of moral law cannot be found through subjective reasoning, as Kant explains when he says that "man is affected by so many inclinations that, even though he is indeed capable of the idea of pure practical reason, he is not so easily able to make that idea effective (Kant, p.3)." Inclinations (desires and aversions), cloud the ability to discuss morality when empirical grounds are involved. The notion of the "good will" is related to the predominance of reason. A good will being the only thing "which can be regarded as good without qualification," Kant claims that such a will is good "not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some purpose end...[but because] it is good in itself (Kant, p.7)." Through this belief, an immediate separation is made between inclination and morality. For a will to be good, it cannot be used in the pursuit of any end. The principle of autonomy is the one within which lies all the principles of Kant's. Any person that employs pure reason can follow the categorical imperative. This means that each person has moral autonomy; everyone has the ability to determine a just, universal law as long as they possess a good will. Utilitarians, on the other hand, follow a principle that is much less involved. John Stuart Mill, in his essay Utilitarianism, states very plainly that the principle of utility, or greatest happiness, "holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill, p.137)." An action that encourages happiness and avoids pain is considered moral. Mill rejects the Kantian tendency to separate morality and happiness. Happiness is morality, for utilitarians, including both physical pleasure and intellectual pleasure, not to mention lack of pain. Through education, humans can trap into the unlimited sources of intellectual stimulation that have been provided by civilization. ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 9 Kant places faith in the human mind, in particular the use of a priori reasoning to establish objective moral principles. Mill rejects this belief, stating that "moral feelings are not innate, but acquired," and that they may arise naturally over time (Mill, p.163). He is unwilling to accept the Kantian view that pure reason can lead to good will. Utilitarians believe that the golden rule should dictate people's behaviour, which give some insight into the type of ideals that they wish to promote in society. Kant oppose moral systems that are based on heteronomy, rather than autonomy. Anything other than autonomy means that morality will be based on something outside of the will; hence it goes against the categorical imperative. On the other hand, Mill could argue that individuals hold no autonomous moral status for two reasons. First, the happiness of the overall community has more importance than a single person and second, there is no innate moral thought, so the categorical imperative is nearly impossible without education and socialization. Whether or not an individual can truly develop moral principles a priori is a central part of Kantian absolutism, and a possibility that Mill rejects in his discussion of utilitarianism. Unfortunately, such a question may be unanswerable. Why is Ethics in the Public Sector Different from Ethics in the Private Sector Several factors influence the differing ways that ethics applies under various conditions. A doctor, an attorney, a university professor, and a priest may all share the same ethical beliefs but under different professional assumptions. Each is ethically required to keep the confidence of those under their care or ministry, but in each case, the type of information to be kept confidential, the limits of the confidentiality, and the reasons for it are different. Within public administration, there are many specific professions with their special ethical environments. The environments may vary even among those in the same profession, depending upon factors such as a job's specific duties, the ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 10 culture of the organization, and the significant conditions that pertain at a specific time. A private company is owned by one person or a small number of people, and they run their business as they see fit within the law for their own private interest. A public organization cannot be said to have an owner. It is responsible to the general public in a manner roughly similar to that in which a company is ultimately responsible to its ownership. The company or corporation does what its owners tell it to do, but the public organization must answer to a public charge specified by people speaking for the entire society. The private company or corporation must make a profit; the public agency must serve the public. If a private corporation loses money consistently, it eventually closes down unless subsidized, at which point it ceases to be an independent entity. The public agency is generally not required to make money but only to respond to a public charge that the public is willing to fund. The public agency is successful when it uses money productively rather than when it makes money. The difference in the nature of ownership in both the sectors has deep ethical implications. The public agency is created to serve values that the public considers worthy. Most people support activities of government to help the society as a whole rather than just themselves. While it may be said that a society's values are ultimately evident in the products that it buys, those values are more directly expressed in the agencies that it deliberately creates. Societies permit private companies and corporations to exist, but societies mandate the work of their public agencies. A society can allow an industry, such as the tobacco industry, to exist without approving of its products or encouraging people to buy them. But when the society creates and funds public agencies, it expresses a value that the society in general considers worthy. The society's values are implicit not only in the public organizations it creates, but also in the manners in which it requires those organizations to function. The people may demand to choose more ethical treatment of employees, respect for ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 11 the environment, or financial disclosure form public agencies than from private firms. The governmental limitations on private organizations, even when they are imposed, express the society's ideas of how an organization is permitted to do its business, but the mandated structure of public agencies expresses how they should conduct business. The owners and stockholders of a private organization may, and often do, make ethical choices. A private firm, must however, make a profit in order to stay in business. Even when the private organization chooses to advance ethical values, they are those that the owners, stockholders, and organization as a whole consider worthy. Research has provided evidence that public employees differ in significant ways from private employees. Two well known studies, one of graduate students preparing for positions in the public service (Rawls, Ulrich, and Nelson 1975) and the other of public employees (Rainey 1983), indicate that people who choose to work in public administration usually value money less and social improvement more than do private employees. If the results of those studies are accurate, public service attracts people who come into the profession already strongly influenced by ethical values. Barry Bozeman (1987) has argued that the distinction between the public and the private organization is somewhat blurry. He points out, for example, that private organizations are often under public regulation and political pressure. Even if the difference is one of degree, government agencies have a much higher degree of publicness than most private sector companies. ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 12 References Abbott, Thomas Kingsmill; Kant Immanuel; Longmans, & Green (1883). Kant's Critique of Practical Reason & Other works on the Theory of Ethics. Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals & Legislations. Clarendon Press, 1879 Chandler, Ralph Clark. Deontological Dimensions Of Administrative Ethics Revisited. www.books.google.co.in Cooper, Terry L. Handbook Of Administrative Ethics. www.books.google.co.in Denhardt, Kathryn G. The Ethics of Public Service. Greenwood Press (1988) Fite, Warner; Longmans; Green. An Introductory Study of Ethics (1909). Geuras, Dean; Garofalo, Charles. Practical Ethics in Public Administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer. Preference Utilitarianism http://www.echeat.com/essay . Utilitarianism Vs. Deontology Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) (Last edited by Allen Brizee on October 9th 2009). APA Formatting and Style Guide. Retrieved on October 6, 2009, from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01 Sidgwick, Henry. Method Of Ethics Macmillan & Co. Limited, 1901. Stephen, Leslie; Duckworth. The English Utilitarians Vol.I, 1900. Read More