Ethics is the study of what is considered right and wrong, good and bad. Morality is the focus of the study of ethics; it is defined as the nature of good, good behavior, and the good person. Morality regards the choices and decisions we make and how ethical they are (Lawton 1998, Willa 2001, Cooper 2006). Hence moral values are those principles that determine and influence our actions and how they are chosen, which direction is taken, and which behavior or action is avoided or repressed. Moral norms, on the other hand indicate a correct and morally acceptable behavior in a certain situation according to a code of behavior.
Ethics is regarded as the collection and the study of the moral values and norms that provide the standards and cornerstones in assessing what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, and if the actions maintain integrity and the values commonly accepted. (Rohr 1978, Lawton 1998, Huberts et al. 2008.)
In administrative ethics literature, three normative approaches are often distinguished and tracked as the background of ethics and moral analysis. These approaches are consequentialist, duty and virtue ethics, the normative ethical theories. There are other moral theories as well, for example care ethics, that have developed as a critique of the traditional theories. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy that theorizes the content of our moral judgments, studying what is right and what is wrong. Normative theories focus on how issues should be reflected, instead of focusing on how things actually are or how they are applied.
(Timmons 2011.)
The first, utilitarian ethics (teleological approach), is a consequentialist perspective on ethics, and the determination of the goodness of a deed is measured in relation to its outcome and consequences; if the end result is
expected to be, and will be, desirable and good for a majority or the target group, then a deed is deemed good and ethical. Vice versa, if the outcome is negative or harmful, the consequential analysis of ethics views the action as unethical, or contradictory to the morals of society. In literature, the teleological approach has been covered by and is derived mainly from the theories of David Hume, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. (Cooper 2006, Salminen 2010.)
The second approach to administrative ethics is duty ethics (deontological approach). In this Kantian perspective, the morality and ethics of an action or deed are not dependent on its consequence, but solely on the action itself. When the action is based on and honors a given obligation or principle, it is deemed as morally good. Therefore, it is the principles and duties that shall be respected, thus right actions do not necessarily lead to favorable consequences. According to the categorical imperative, the right action is the kind of action we can hope to become a universal law, a way of acting that could be applied to every person.
The categorical imperative can be formulated as the following (Cahn 2009: 79–
80): “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as means”.
Whereas the deontological approach favors and emphasizes the rationality and logic as the basis for moral codes and moral behavior, the consequential approach emphasizes the sentiment and the idea that moral behavior is not solemnly motivated by reasons and thinking, but also feelings. This distinction has led to an influential formulation of Hume’s law: “one cannot derive an ought from an is”
(Mizzoni 2010: 87).
Thirdly, virtue ethics approaches morality and ethics from the qualities or the characteristics of the persons, actors who are undertaking the action, instead of focusing on the action or deed at all. The abilities, intentions, values and motives of persons, in administrative ethics naturally the public administrators, are those that determine morality. The virtue approach dates back to the Aristotelian and Confucian approach, with the question of what kind of life individuals should lead, rather than what kind of actions they should choose. (MacIntyre 1981, cf., Salminen 2010.)
In the practice of administration and decision-making, the logic of deciding the right course of action and weighing the ethics of the alternatives rarely follow solely the demands of duty or utility. The outcome is that decision-makers almost never act purely on the basis of duty to principle or by focusing on the consequences. Moral reasoning is reflected in the administrative decision-making processes and may be highly intuitive. The utility approach lends itself to a result-based analysis in decision-making. The weight is on producing the best benefit to
the majority of citizens. The defining question formulates into what course of action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. The duty approach leads to a rule-based strategy, where the justification relies on rules found in legislation, court cases and norms. The key questions are what the duties and rules to be followed are, and on what underlying level would the idea of the categorical imperative be: would this decision be considered only by the person who is considering it? The virtue approach is more of a personal view that focuses on the character and promotes individual and collective well-being and ethically good actions. The question is, does the decision exert virtuous characteristics?
(Bowman & West 2015: 92–93.)
As in any sphere of human interaction, public service and management have their particular virtues, characteristics deemed especially good, a frame of thought toward a new public virtue ethics. Cooper (1987) identified benevolence as a necessary virtue in administrative practice and beneficence for the citizenry as one of the internal good. However, Macaulay & Lawton (2006: 705) posit the argument that benevolence is not a necessary virtue for a public servant who is dealing entirely with procedures and standards; therefore, the agreement on the common or shared virtues within the profession of public administration remains varied and dependent on the profile and duties of the public servant.
Administrative ethics theories have incorporated the utility, duty and virtue approaches in the practical theories of, for example, decision-making and technical competence. Bowman, West, Berman & Van Wart (2004) posit that the combination of virtue and technical competence are both necessary for successful public management; however, they note that the determination of virtues proves challenging, because of the culture, time and context dependency in the profession. The public administrator should develop and maintain a triangle of skills consisting of technical competence, leadership and ethical competence.
Ethical competence entails ethical making. A model of ethical decision-making comprises all three aspects of duty; decisions are based on the application of norms and rules and utility. Decisions are based on the expected results and virtue where the justification of decisions relies on the proper moral character.
Each one is equally important. (cf. Macaulay & Lawton 2006: 705, Bowman et al.
2004: 21, 27.)
The fourth influential ethical theory, especially with relation to governance and public service research, is social contract ethics, or contractarian theories. In these theories, ethics concerns the participation in a social contract. An action is right when it is consistent with an agreed upon contract, and when a person breaks this contract, the action is wrong. Hobbes was the prominent figure in social contract
ethics in the seventeenth century. his ideas were further developed by Locke, Rousseau and Rawls in later centuries. Social contract ethics is informed by ethical egoism, i.e. the notion that people should do what is in their best interest (usually narrow self-interest is not in the best interest of a person). According to the principle of the social contract, people also should participate in social contracts rationally and with common sense. (Mizzoni 2010: 61–71.)
Another important group of theories in administrative ethics concerns the question of justice, particularly social justice. An influential work as a political and moral theory is A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (1971). The Rawlsian notion of justice is a Kantian approach. In the Rawlsian view, justice is seen as fairness, which is an ideal achieved by decisions made in the so-called “original position” or behind a “veil of ignorance”. This means, that an individual would have no previous knowledge of position, class, status, intellectual or physical capabilities in society while making decisions on, for example, the principles of distributive justice (Rawls 1971: 102–120).
Normative ethical theories also have newer approaches in addition to the traditional deontological and teleological theories. The care ethics approach, or ethics of care, is a moral theory that focuses on the elements of relationships and dependencies in life. In a normative sense, care ethics seeks to maintain meaningful relationships in a network of social relationships, especially in the context of care-givers and care-receivers. Care ethics draws on the motivation to look after those who are in a vulnerable position or dependent on others for their well-being. Some critics view care ethics more as a practice or even a virtue rather than a theory as such. The work of Gilligan has largely influenced the development of the care ethics approach, and it was partly a critical response to the deontological and teleological approaches to ethics. Another critique that care ethics poses is on Kohlberg’s (1970) moral development theory. The care ethics approach criticizes the gender bias and sees moral development as understanding the responsibilities and relationships between people. (Lawton et al. 2013: 23, Lehtonen 2011, Myyry et al. 2010, Gilligan 1982.)