4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

Search

Ethics Home Page

About the Center
Focus Areas
Bioethics
Business Ethics
Campus Ethics
Character Education
Government Ethics
Internet Ethics
More...
Publications
Ethics Articles
Ethics Cases
Ethical Decision Making
Videos
Ethics Blogs
Podcasts
E-letter/Subscribe
Contact Us
Site Index

Ethics in Public Service

By Dr. David L. Perry
Adapted from a workshop conducted for Leadership Santa Clara on 8 June 2000.
Overview:
- Highlight some current ethical issues in public service.
- Identify ethics in relation to law, etiquette, and empirical disciplines.
- Examine theories challenging the objectivity of morality.
- Identify some general ethical principles, and some specific to public officials.
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

1/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

- Note some conflicts among ethical obligations.

- Provide a framework for analyzing ethical issues & making ethical decisions.
- Analyze some contending arguments about capital punishment.
- Explore questions about who or what should count in moral deliberations.
- Discuss issues surrounding land & housing in the Bay Area.
Some facts suggesting current ethical issues in public service:
- The number of homeless people in the Bay Area is apparently increasing.
- Thousands of California residents have no health insurance: they make just enough income to disqualify for
Medicaid, but are too poor to afford private health insurance, or they work for employers who dont provide it.
- The gambling industry is now the largest financial contributor to California legislators.
- An elected official allegedly encouraged contributions from insurance companies that his agency regulates to
fund nonprofit organizations that promoted his own political prestige, then allowed those companies to avoid
paying full compensation to policyholders. (See San Jose Mercury News, 8 June 2000.)
- A newspaper executive allegedly promised to curb editorial criticism of an elected official, in exchange for that
official not opposing his companys merger with another newspaper (GradetheNews.org).
- Some local ranchers are being prevented from selling certain parts of their land to wineries, because their ponds
are considered essential to the survival of a rare salamander species.
- A major local employer wants to build a large new production facility and a parking lot; this will eliminate some
fragile wetland areas and displace some rare burrowing owls. (See San Jose Mercury News, 7 June 2000.)
In many cases we could spell out the ethical issues that arise here clearly and precisely. In other cases we might
only have a vague sense of unease about them, and be unable to distinguish ethical considerations from others.
What is ethics?
The words "ethics" and "morality" have Greek and Latin origins, respectively. Traditionally they referred to
customary values and rules of conduct (as in "cultural ethos" and "social mores"), as well as insights about what
counts as human excellence and flourishing. "Ethics" and "morality" are often used interchangeably by us today.
But ethics also refers to moral philosophy, i.e., a discipline of critical analysis of the meaning and justification of
moral beliefs.
Ethics and morality--along with law and etiquette--are essentially normative, that is, they prescribe human
behavior as obligatory, prohibited, or permissible. Theres considerable overlap between ethics and law, and
ethics and etiquette. Much of the law embodies ethical principles: respect for basic rights to life, property, and
the right of citizens to participate in political life. Its usually unethical to break the law. A breach of etiquette can
also be unethical if it is done intentionally to offend someone simply for ones own amusement.
Ethics goes beyond etiquette, though, to include matters that nearly every human society considers significant:
actions such as lying, breaking a promise or killing someone are more serious than social faux pas. Ethics also
has to do with human character and motivation, which in many cases are irrelevant to etiquette and law. And law
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

2/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

and etiquette can sometimes be criticized on moral grounds: consider U.S. laws and customs that historically
treated African Americans and women as less than full citizens.
In contrast to ethics and other normative disciplines, many fields of study such as the natural sciences,
psychology, history and economics are empirical, meaning that they attempt to describe, explain or predict
events or motives or actions. In general, empirical disciplines deal with facts and probabilities, while normative
disciplines promote or assess values. Empirical disciplines study what exists, what happened, or what tends to
happen under certain conditions; their claims can at least in theory be tested using controlled scientific methods or
in light of the best available evidence. Moral principles state how human beings ought to treat one another; moral
claims cannot be proven or disproven by empirical means alone.
Ethical arguments often rely on empirical assumptions, though. And empirical claims are often made in ways that
attempt to persuade people to accept a moral conclusion. In order to be able to tell whether ethical arguments
are sound or cogent, we need to be able to distinguish between different types of moral claims, and between
moral and empirical claims. We also must determine whether those claims are being used properly in support of
moral conclusions. Ill come back to this later in connection with the issue of capital punishment.
Is morality objective? In other words, are there moral obligations that apply to all rational beings?
Consider some theories that deny this, and some reasons why those theories fail (cf. James Rachels, Elements
of Moral Philosophy, third edition, 1999):
Nihilism: Morality is an illusion; there are no moral obligations. This would mean that theres nothing
inherently wrong with something like cruelty, which seems strongly counterintuitive. A nihilist would have no
grounds upon which to argue rationally against someone else who wanted to harm him or her just for the fun of it.
Psychological egoism: We cant avoid being selfish, hence theres no point in reasoning about ethics.
Selfishness can sometimes masquerade as altruism, to be sure. But PE is too sweeping and reductionistic: even if
showing compassion toward others makes you happy, that isnt necessarily why you do it. Even if we are
sometimes selfish, we can have unselfish motives, too.
Normative egoism: I have no moral obligations to anyone else; only my interests count in deciding what I
should do. But if others interests are similar to yours in relevant ways, it's arbitrary and thus irrational to ignore
or discount theirs.
Subjective relativism: Ethics is relative to individual beliefs; whatever you believe is right is right "for
you." But consider examples of rape, child abuse, torture, and slavery. Even if the perpetrators of such things
believe them to be okay, that doesnt make them right.
Cultural relativism: Ethics is relative to cultural beliefs. Clearly some cultural differences are significant, e.g.,
how the elderly are treated, or the status of women. But many values and rules are shared across cultures, such
as those against lying, stealing, and murder. More importantly, the refutation of CR is like that of subjectivism: a
cultures belief in something doesnt make it true "for them." (Is the earth really flat for people who believe its
flat?) Moral disagreement between cultures doesnt prove theres no objectively true morality. We need to be on
guard against ethnocentrism, but we shouldnt be afraid to challenge cultural beliefs and practices that seem to
violate basic human rights.
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

3/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

Many people in this country are "knee-jerk relativists," because they worry about "imposing" values on anyone
else. But few people are comfortable remaining relativists after the implications of such views are recognized. All
of the theories above fail to prove that moral principles cant be objective in some sense. Rejecting them doesnt
necessarily lead to arrogance or imperialism, since our own views are subject to rational critique and revision like
everyone elses. The point is to stand by those ethical principles that have the best reasons supporting them, and
to refine or reject principles that are shown to be based on bad reasoning.
What are some ethical principles that seem to apply objectively to all of us?
- Compassion; concern for the well-being of others.
- Nonmaleficence: avoiding inflicting suffering and hardship on others.
- Beneficence: preventing and alleviating others suffering; meeting the needs of the most vulnerable; promoting
others happiness (strongest toward our family and friends).
- Fairness; treating people the way they deserve to be treated; as having equal rights unless merit or need justifies
special treatment.
- Courage in opposing injustice.
- Respect for individual autonomy; not manipulating rational individuals even for their own good.
- Respect for the Constitution and other laws enacted by legitimate governing bodies.
- Honesty; not deceiving anyone who deserves to know the truth.
- Not making promises that we dont intend to keep.
- Keeping promises that we made freely.
- Integrity; upholding our obligations in spite of personal inconvenience.
Some specific obligations of public officials:
- Use impartial judgment in the service of all constituents.
- Avoid conflicts of interest that could undermine your objective judgment.
- Dont show favoritism toward family and friends in hiring.
- Dont solicit or accept bribes from people seeking to influence your official decisions.
- Dont invest in property or companies that could be affected by your official decisions.
In the revised "Code of Ethics and Values" of the City of Santa Clara, section 1.f. says, "I will show respect for
persons." The City Council in discussing the implications of this principle recently added, "I will not rubberhose the staff in a public meeting. I will not name-call, storm off, snipe, talk under my breath with others while the
public is testifying, or in other ways demean staff, [the] public, or other commissioners during public meetings."
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

4/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

Are any moral principles, rules or values absolute?

Possibly: Consider "Dont rape," and "Dont torture children or animals." There are no clear exceptions to those
rules. But its often very difficult to state moral rules that arent vulnerable to counterexamples: "Dont kill."
Never in self-defense? Never in defense of other innocent people? Never kill animals to survive? "Dont lie"
Even to save lives or to prevent other serious harm? Principles can sometimes be strengthened, though, by
incorporating exceptional cases. By refining general principles in "conversation" with concrete rules, we can hope
to achieve what the philosopher John Rawls called "reflective equilibrium" (A Theory of Justice, 1971, revised
1999).
Perhaps most ethical principles should be considered prima facie binding on us: i.e., universal (not relative to
cultural or individual beliefs) and timeless (slavery, e.g., was never objectively ethical), but not absolute. Ethical
principles will often reinforce each other in opposition to selfishness and cruelty. But there will sometimes be
situations where ethical principles conflict with one another, and we cant always establish in advance which
should take precedence. (This approach was developed by the philosopher W. D. Ross in The Right and the
Good, 1930.)
Consider some of the moral conflicts and tradeoffs in the following cases:
- Paternalistic laws (ones that restrict the freedom of persons for their own good): laws requiring seat belts, air
bags, motorcycle helmets; involuntary commitment of the mentally ill (how much must a depressed or psychotic
person suffer before we can rightly override their refusal of treatment?).
- Duties of public officials to be open and accountable to citizens, vs. the need for secrecy in sensitive diplomatic
negotiations, police undercover operations etc.
Conflict is probably inevitable in democratic politics. Even if we could agree at the level of abstract principles and
general policies, we might still disagree on how to apply them: "Ill pay taxes to build freeways, airports,
homeless shelters, mental hospitals, prisons and landfills, but dont put them in my neighborhood!" Politicians and
civil servants cannot hope to please everyone. Activists should not assume that their values are the only ones
worth promoting.
A framework for analyzing ethical issues and making ethical decisions:
Explain the issue: What seems to be at stake morally? Outline the contending arguments, clarifying their explicit
claims and implicit assumptions.
Explore the relevant facts: What empirical claims are being made? (Historical, predictive etc.) Is there adequate
and unambiguous evidence of what happened? How plausible are the claims made about what is likely to
happen? Are any important empirical studies being ignored?
Imagine alternative actions: What could be done instead?
Assess the relevant moral claims and values: Are good reasons offered in support of them, or are they asserted
without justification? Who will be helped and harmed by alternative actions? Is the argument exclusively
consequentialist? If so, does it ignore non-consequentialist values or rights? If some interests or rights are claimed
to take precedence over others, is that claim reasonable? Are any fundamental rights of persons at risk?
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

5/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

Evaluate logical soundness and cogency: Eliminate irrelevant claims and insinuations, such as ad hominem
attacks on opponents character to distract the audience from the issue at hand (an endemic problem in politics!).
Does the argument flow logically? Does its conclusion follow from its premises in a valid or strong way?
Eliminate or reduce obstacles to right action: Are there incentives or pressures to do the wrong thing? (Political,
social, financial, psychological.) If so, can they be alleviated, negotiated, or countered? How can ethical
standards be reinforced in our organization, e.g., in the ways in which we establish objectives, evaluate and
reward performance, and investigate misconduct?
Consider some contending arguments about capital punishment (CP):
Note that I not only analyze them, but indicate which points I find most compelling.
- CP prevents murderers from ever killing again. (Empirical) But life in prison without parole can be just as
effective as CP in that regard.
- CP is not effective in deterring murder. (Empirical) E.g., of the total number of people executed in the U.S.
since 1976, Texas has been responsible for over 1/3; but it also has one of the highest per-capita murder
rates.
- If CP were effective in deterring murder, then it would be morally justified. (Consequentialist) But punishment
is only appropriate for those who are guilty of crimes. Its wrong to punish the innocent even if doing so
is effective in deterring crime. (Non-Consequentialist) Thus even if CP were effective as a deterrent (or
otherwise produced better consequences than no CP), that would not make it right.
- CP is inherently unethical; its no better than murder itself. (Non-Consequentialist) But not if a murderer can
rightly be said to forfeit his right to life; in that case, the state in executing him does not necessarily
wrong him in the sense that he wronged his innocent victim.
- CP is an appropriate form of retribution for certain crimes. (Non-Consequentialist) Thus CP could be
justified even if its worthless as a deterrent.
- In many cases, people have been convicted of murder in the U.S. due to shoddy police work, false
testimony by criminals who were offered incentives by prosecutors, and incompetent defense lawyers.
Some innocent people may have been executed as a result. (Empirical)
- CP should be abolished if it cannot be administered in consistently just ways, or suspended until it can.
(Non-Consequentialist) Note the recent action taken by the Governor of Illinois.
- Advances in forensic science and technology, including genetic tests, can or could eliminate ambiguities
in many murder cases. (Empirical)
Who or what should count in our moral deliberations?
- How wide should our circle of moral concern extend?
- Who or what has a legitimate stake in what we might do?
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

6/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

- Who should be heard but isnt being heard? Who among us is vulnerable, suffering, and voiceless?
- Are people the only ones who should count? If so, is it because of our intelligence? Then why not include
chimps, dolphins etc.?
- If intelligence is what really matters, what about people with severe mental retardation?
- Should we expand the circle to include all sentient creatures, i.e., those capable of experience and suffering?
- Could it also be wrong to destroy non-sentient living things like trees or plants, even if they cant experience
anything and thus cant be said to have interests in living? Do they have inherent value apart from their usefulness
to us?
- Should we try to preserve the biodiversity of existing ecosystems?
- Is it possible to see inherent worth in all living things, and yet not risk human survival? Can we consistently care
for animals and still eat some of them or use them to test pharmaceuticals?
- Could it ever be immoral to destroy inanimate things like rock formations, if doing so caused no living creature
to suffer?
- Is there an appropriate hierarchy of moral status? Do some species interests always take precedence over
those of "lower" species? Or should similar interests across species be treated similarly? E.g., does the suffering
of a chimp "weigh" the same as the suffering of a child?
Scenario for discussion: Land and housing in the Bay Area:
Demand for housing is exceeding supply. Five jobs are created for every one home. Rents and home prices have
gone up in recent years at rates higher than most of the rest of the U.S. Median price of a home in Santa Clara
County went up 40% in past year.
Other contributing factors:
- Geography: water and mountains constrain housing growth and transportation (compare a city like Indianapolis
with extensive prairie in which to expand);
- Pleasant climate (people are hesitant to move away simply to find cheaper homes);
- Past decisions to set aside Open Space, wetlands, parks, wildlife refuges;
- Zoning regulations that favor single-family homes over multi-family buildings.
Many people benefit from these trends: e.g., those who bought homes in the early 1990s have seen their value
increase tremendously. But others have been hurt: their income cant keep up with rising rents; their rental
apartment "goes condo" and they cant afford to buy it; elderly and working poor are hardest hit. Homelessness
is increasing.
Some options for local governments:
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

7/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

- Dont intervene further: allow the market to run within existing zoning and environmental constraints (or
eliminate some or all of those constraints).
- If some industrial areas are not being used, change their zoning to residential.
- Buy land and build housing; subsidize rents or mortgages for people who otherwise could not afford housing.
- Limit or reduce the amount of land set aside for environmental or recreation purposes.
- Institute rent control, and prevent rental properties from "going condo."
- Limit job growth by raising the cost of starting and running a business.
Questions: Which option or combination of options do you think is the most ethical? Why? How
would you defend your decision against opposing views?
(Note that merely increasing the supply of housing wont completely solve the problem of homelessness. Other
contributing factors include: mental illness; drug and alcohol abuse; spousal abuse; shortsighted financial planning
by individuals; recessions; natural disasters.)
Recommended: Timothy Beatley, Ethical Land Use: Principles of Policy and Planning (1994).
David Perry is the Director of Ethics Programs, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, and Lecturer in
Religious Studies.
Click here for more ethics related articles.

Printer-Friendly Page
R e turn to W e b form at

New Materials
Privacy Tradeoffs Online
GPS tracking and the aggregation of GPS data into large databases
College Confessions
Are the new online secret sites harmless?
Catholic Schools and Character Education
Center curriculum ties to new standards and benchmarks
Putting Students First (podcast)
Center director talks with Michelle Rhee
Center News
Global Jesuit Dialog: Price Fixing
A case study on cement dealers in Kerala
Ethics App Contest
www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

8/9

4/2/13

Ethics in Public Service

SCU students invited to enter--deadline April 5

More News
Follow us on
The views expressed on this site are the
author's. The Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics does not advocate
particular positions but seeks to
encourage dialogue on the ethical
dimensions of current issues. The
Center welcomes comments and
alternative points of view.
Ethics Home
Campus Map
About the Center
Site Index
Contact Us
2012 Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/service.html

9/9