Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma

Introduction

In the domain of public administration, ethical lines are easily crossed. Some of the biggest ethical scandals in history stem from the public administration and political sector as seen in the case of the Watergate Scandal. According to Makrydemetres (2002), the 21st century society has brought more uncertainties to the field of public administration from the overarching processes of globalization of market economies, fast adoption of information technology, increasing local and international political conflicts and the constant changes in the authority system. 

While public administrators work within some kind of legal framework, it does not mean that they operate under ethical framework. Aziz (2014) defines ethics as a branch of philosophy that addresses morality; ethics deal with right and wrong. In the public administration sector, public administrators are ethically considered “stewards” to the public. Hence, public administrators must be accountable to the public every time. George Frederickson (1996) questions whether public administrators can be considered unethical or ethical, this is a classic question that affects both the public administrators and the public in general. Frederickson (1996) differentiates a political person from an administrative person to clarify any type of confusion. A public administrator is a merit-based civil servant appointed on a professional criteria, whereas a political person is elected or politically appointed. From the above definition, it is evident that public administrators are qualified professionals that must work within the provisions of the legal and ethical framework (Adebayo, 2014). 

Nonetheless, ethical behavior varies across different professions. What might appear wrong to the public, might be easily justifiable among public administrators. There are common ethical issues that affected public administrators: corruption, the sale of information, demanding for pay for services rendered and other forms of unlawful behavior (Puiu, 2015). All these ethical dilemmas make the public wonder whether public administrators serve the interests of the public or they are after serving their selfish needs. Despite the many cases of ethical dilemmas, there are public administrators who try to uphold integrity in their work. Such public administrators understand that an “ethical” public service is an important aspect of good governance. 

Ethical Dilemma (Reporting Corrupt Officials)

Makrydemetres (2002) defines dilemma as a more complex problem. A dilemma cannot be solved by one strategy as an individual is faced with unwelcome alternatives. A common ethical issue often faced by public administrators is the issue of corruption (Ayee, 1998). Corruption is a comprehensive concept that refers to all forms of dishonest and fraudulent behavior by those in authority. Corrupt public officials put others in a dilemma, where they wonder whether they should report the corrupt of officials or let them be (Malek, 2010). It is worth noting that regardless of their position, public administrators have some form of authority, and sometimes they take advantage of the authority to benefit themselves. Public administrators, especially those in high positions have been involved in corruption. Such administrators are in charge of huge funds aimed at developing the community, and in some occasions they embezzle the money or use it for personal use. Alternatively, public administrators are also known to engage in subtle forms of corruption, they can ask for favors from the public in exchange for their services (Ayee, 1998). 

However, the ethical dilemma comes in when a public administrator knows that their colleagues are engaging in corruption. The administrator in question will have a tough decision to make, whether to reveal the corruption or maintain the job by keeping quiet. Though there are rules to protect whistleblowers in the public sector, these rules can be easily broken by corrupt individuals, making the decision to expose corrupt officials very hard (Malek, 2010). Some whistle blowers have found themselves in a tough position where they are denied salary, promotion or even let go for whistle-blowing. Some are afraid because they will be alienated at work. Alternatively, many public administrators would choose not to say anything about the corrupt officials because they are afraid it will come to haunt them. Some public administrators will justify why others engage in corruption to avoid whistle-blowing, for instance, the poor working conditions of some public servants force them to engage in corruptions. 

Analysis of the Dilemma Using Different Theories

There are different approaches to ethics, each with different guiding principles. Ethical theories act as the foundation of ethical solutions, and they help individuals to decide what is wrong and what is right. Ethical theories are classified into the following classes: deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and rights. 

Deontology

Deontology ethics are concerned with what people do, not the consequences of their actions (Rousseau, 2013). Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of duty that rational human beings must fulfill. Deontology ethics state that people should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do regardless of the consequences, hence, in deontology ethics one cannot justify the wrong action using good consequences. Deontology ethics are also called duty-based ethics, it teaches people to differentiate between what is right and wrong, and to mandate them to act accordingly regardless of the consequences.

Immanuel Kant is a prominent figure in the school of deontology ethics, Kant argued that it is possible to establish a consistent moral system by using reason (Rousseau, 2013). Kant believed that every rational human being can reason to establish what is right from what is wrong without necessarily depending in God or the community. According to Kantian ethics, whenever human beings make a decision, they act on maxims (intentions) (Lacewing, 2009). Each individual only makes a decision with an intention behind it, and human beings should make decisions as “the will.” Humans should not act on instincts or choices only, rather they should, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Lacewing, 2009 p. 34). 

Lacewing (2009) states that two important aspects of Kantian ethics are: goodwill and duty. The goodwill acts as the foundation of decision making such that individuals with morally goodwill are more likely to engage in ethical decision making. Kant adds that to have a morally good will is to be motivated by duty, such that an individual is always motivated to do the right thing regardless of the situation. 

When Kantian ethics/ deontology is applied to the public administrator dilemma, the situation ceases to be a dilemma. In this situation, the public administrator is expected to do the right thing, which is to come forward and expose corrupt public administrators regardless of the consequences. Rousseau (2013) describes a public administrator as an individual who works for the government to serve members of the public, hence, the primary priority of the individual is to uphold positive values shared by the government and the public. According to deontology ethics, corruption represents an abuse of power aimed at satisfying personal or group interest (Rousseau, 2013). It is an antisocial act that leads to negative consequences such as economic fraud, misuse of funds and conflicts, therefore, public servants have a duty to avoid corruption. Rousseau (2013) suggests an ethical revolution based on deontology ethics as a means of ending corruption in the public sector. Rousseau (2013) believes that a mentality change among public officials is necessary to put an end to corruption, public officials will believe in doing the right because it is their duty to do so. If an individual is guided by “good will” as proposed by Kant, the individual is guided by good intentions and a duty to do right, therefore, the individual will go ahead and report corrupt practices. 

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism theory is a relative approach to ethics unlike deontology. Utilitarianism approach states that an individual ought to act in a way that produces the best consequences ever. Utilitarianism is best known as consequentialism. Utilitarianism emerged in the 18th century to address the social problems faced by the majority in the British society (Vorster, 2013). Utilitarianism was founded by Bentham, who believed that human action cannot be classified as wrong and right only. Bentham argued that human beings act with the aim of increasing their pleasure, and reducing pain. Sometimes human beings engage in questionable behaviors because it brings them pleasure. In an effort to avoid a hedonistic world where everyone is guided by their selfish needs, Bentham proposed utilitarianism as an alternative. He argued that the happiness of the community outweighs individual interest. 

John Stuart Mill is another notable theorist in favor of utilitarianism ethics. Mill supported Bentham’s “greatest happiness” principles, he argued that it is common sense to act in a way that promotes happiness, and it is wrong to act in a way that brings pain (Vorster, 2013). In an attempt to solve some of the problems in Bentham’s premise, Mills added some concepts to the theory. Mill came up with the concept of higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are intellectual pleasures that promote learning and are more permanent, unlike lower pleasures which are largely bodily pleasures (Mill, 2003). Mill suggested that human beings are more likely to be happy if they pursue higher pleasures. 

Mill also suggested that individuals are motivated to do the right thing by the universal agreement on role of sanctions (Vorster, 2013). Utilitarianism states that social sanctions such as punishing criminals, prevent people from committing crimes. Mills added to that by referring to internal sanctions, such as conscience, guilt and self-esteem that prevent people from doing the wrong thing. 

Addressing the public administrator dilemma using utilitarianism is problematic. Utilitarianism ethics does not claim that corruption is wrong, rather, corruption that benefits one person while many others suffer is wrong. Therefore, the administrator has to weigh the extent of corruption, and who benefits from it before exposing it. In some situation, a corrupt official is known to help others and the community in general, and exposing such a person might not sit well with others. 

Utilitarianism ethics believes in the existence of external and internal sanctions to guide behavior. Corruption as an ethical issue can produce serious or minimal damages, and this will affect the decision to whistle blow. For instance, small cases of corruption do not cause much harm to the community, while big cases of corruption cause a lot of harm. According to Vorster (2013) in deciding to expose those involved in corruption, one must ascertain that the corruption has significantly setting back the interests of other individuals or the community. 

From the above assertions, applying utilitarianism to address corruption in public administration is challenging. One has to consider the extent and the effects of the activities of corrupt officials before deciding to come forward or not. 

Rights Approach

Rights approach to ethics borrows a lot from deontology. The rights approach towards ethics maintains that there are things that individuals cannot go against because they are holders of moral rights. For instance, it is wrong to harm another human being because they are holders of human rights. It is worth noting that rights and duties are interrelated, such that it might be hard to differentiate this theory from duty-based deontology. Rights and duties tend to be the same in public administration, for instance, it is the right of citizens to access public administration services, the same way it is the duty of the public administrator to provide that service.

An influential philosopher who proposes rights theory to evaluate ethical decisions is John Locke. Locke argued that the laws of nature demand that human beings should not harm anyone’s life, liberty or possessions. Locke believed that the natural laws are God-given and should be maintained at all costs. The rights approach to ethics also focuses on the universal human rights, such as freedom of speech, movement among other policies. Corruption does not fall within the natural laws or the universal laws, therefore, Locke might not be against it. 

However, the rights approach recognizes that each individual has to respect natural and universal rights, hence a public administrator is entitled to report corrupt practices. Corrupt practices do not harm natural rights, such as rights to life or liberty, but it denies opportunities to individuals who need them. Corruption is wrong in accordance with the rights theory, and the public administrator will be a part of the wrong if he/she fails to report. 

Virtue Ethics

Lastly, virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that focusses on the individual rather than the action. Unlike the other theories, virtue ethics approach dwells on the moral character of the person involved in the action rather than the action itself. It questions whether the individual is right or wrong based on the individual’s life rather than particular actions. 

According to Luna (2009), Foucault is a prominent supporter of virtue ethics. Foucault stated that in assessing what is right or wrong, individuals are dealing with a person and more so a person who acts. By dealing with a person who acts, both the person and the action are put into consideration. Foucault argues that a person’s action become a “text,” a way of expressing his/her intentions (Luna, 2009). 

According to virtue ethics, a moral person is one who leads a virtuous life. A moral person is known by the action, such that one who commits a good action can be considered a good person. Scholars such as Aristotle were big supporters of virtue ethics given his inquiry on how human beings can achieve highest appeal and lead a more fulfilling life (Gorafalo et al., 2001). Aristotle concluded that, “the virtue of man also will be the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well" (Gorafalo, 2001 p. 3). Hence, an ethical person tries to do the right thing at all times despite the circumstances that make it hard to do the right thing. According to Aristotle, finding a good person is rare, laudable and noble because they exercise their morality in their every day (Aristotle, 1925). Aristotle was against the notion that one can be good and engage in immoral and unethical activities at the same time. He used the example of a doctor and a physician relationship to show that being in the middle is not an option. The patient who follows the physician’s advice will get well, while the one who follows some aspects of the treatment plan is the same as one who does not follow what the doctor says at all (Gorafalo et al., 2001). 

In applying virtue ethics, the only way to solve the dilemma is by doing the right thing, which is reporting cases of corruption among public administrator. Virtue ethics teaches that good people are naturally virtuous, and they do not struggle with the decision of doing the right thing or not. Hence, the public administrator in the situation will not even hesitate to report cases of corruption. Aristotle states that moral individuals derive their happiness and pleasure from leading a desirable life characterized by good actions, thus, virtue is the greatest accomplishment to human kind. Moral/ ethical individuals possess virtues that makes them to do the right thing even when no one is watching, or when it involves a lot of risk. From the virtue ethics approach, those who commit corruption are not ethical, such individuals have not taken the time to develop virtues, and are more likely to engage in wrong activities they lack the virtue to guide them (Gorafalo et al., 2001). 

A Plan to Navigate the Dilemma

Evidently, different theoretical approaches have unique suggestions towards solving ethical dilemmas. Ethical theories are meant to offer some form of guidance when making decisions, but they can be quite confusing when each theory states otherwise. Thus, it is the responsibility of the person facing the dilemma to identify an ethical theory that works best for the situation (Miller, 2014). 

Miller (2014) states that in navigating an ethical dilemma, the first step is to identify an ethical theory that offers the necessary foundation to the potential solutions to the dilemma. Ethical dilemmas attract different solutions, and it is the responsibility of the public administrator to pick one solution after a careful analysis of the consequences. The public administrator in question has more than one option of addressing the dilemma, the first one is to come forward and report the individuals involved in corrupt practices. Most ethical theories, particularly, deontology, the rights approach, and virtue ethics agree that corruption is wrong. Corruption within public administration is antithetical to the work of public administrators. Malek (2010) notes that while reporting misconduct is a moral requirement, it is not a novel thing to do. Ethically, someone who has witnessed a misconduct is obligated to act. 

Reporting cases of corruption in public administration is the right thing to do because corruption takes away resources the public and public projects. Corrupt officials are selfish individuals interested in fulfilling their own needs, hence, it is the duty of the public administrator to report them. In a perfect situation, the corrupt individuals will face legal actions, but that does not always happen. On the other hand, the administrator must be ready for the negative consequences that come with the decision of reporting corrupt individuals. According to Malek (2010), whistle blowing attracts unnecessary consequences. A study done on whistle-blowing incidences in the public sector done by Couzin (2006) showed that only 31% of whistleblowers reported no negative effects of whistle-blowing. A big percentage of whistleblowers experienced negative consequences, some of them were denied salary increases (12%), others were denied promotions (7%), while others were denied tenure. Reporting corruption cases in the public administration often attracts counter-accusations. Therefore, before going ahead to report the corruption case, one has to investigate the situation to get the supporting evidence that will incriminate the individuals involved. Most ethical theories support the decision to report corruption as the right thing to do, but they do not suggest how the individual will deal with the negative consequences of whistle blowing. While it is the right thing to report corruption, a public administrator has to worry about having a job and income, which might not be available after whistle-blowing. 

The other alternative is not to report individuals involved in corruption. This alternative can be supported by utilitarianism ethics, which argues that actions that bring greatest benefits are considered ethical. The public administrator can decide to ignore the situation because he/she is not ready to deal with the negative consequences that come with reporting the situation. The individual can justify the decision not to report using utilitarian ethics, especially when individuals involved in corruption are engaging in subtle forms of corruption that do not harm the public as such (Vorster, 2013). The public administrator has to establish the advantage and disadvantages of this choice to ensure that it is the right one. Weighing the alternatives to prioritize the magnitude of the consequences and benefits of each choice is the right option (Miller, 2014). 

Miller (2014) also suggests that apart from analyzing the choices using ethical theories, an individual must do research on the issue and ask for advice from individuals who are in a better position to give advice. Ethical dilemmas in the public administration sector are a lot, and there are individuals with firsthand information on what to do in such situations. Colleagues, immediate supervisors, and lawyers have experienced cases of corruption at work at some points of their lives, and they can give personal accounts that can help in making the decision. Talking to a supervisor or a colleague will help the administrator to clarify issues, or even in gaining the necessary support in case the individual decided to report the issue. It is worth noting that an ethical dilemma tends to affect the moral aspect of an individual, therefore, it is necessary to seek counsel from individuals who are close to the administrator. Family members can help one to make the right decision, and they will support the individual through the whole process (Miller, 2014). Most importantly, it is necessary to seek legal counsel before exposing cases of corruption. Cases of corruption involving powerful members in public administration, the whistleblower can be made to appear guilty in the process when the people involved are influential. There are pressure groups and trade unions that offer support to individuals who want to expose misconduct among public officials, agencies such as Transparency International and other local agencies are willing to support such public administrators once they verify their allegations. Acting on an ethical decision is a long process, the public administrator must take time to evaluate different options. Undoubtedly, corruption is ethically wrong, but exposing those involved is never easy. 

Describe the Ethical Approach You Will Use to Resolve the Dilemma

Different ethical approaches have unique recommendations towards ethical dilemmas (Vorster, 2013). Regardless, corruption in the public administration sector is an issue that has tainted the public sector, and it needs to be addressed effectively. Addressing this dilemma using utilitarian ethics might not solve the issue given the leniency of utilitarian ethics approach. Efforts made by utilitarians to address ethical dilemmas often fail because utilitarianism focuses on the reaction (Vorster, 2013). Utilitarianism ethics judge behavior based on the consequences, therefore, individuals involved in ethical dilemmas of reporting corruption among public servants will only come forward if they know that they will not face negative consequences. 

The most effective, ethical theory is Kantian deontology. Public administrators hold a position of trust, they are in charge of the resources that can be used to improve the livelihood of the community (Aziz, 2014). Therefore, an absolutist approach to ethics is the best way to approach ethical dilemmas. Many corruption cases could have been discovered earlier if public administrators were willing to do the right thing by exposing those involved as early as possible. Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of duty, and human beings have the responsibility to do the right thing all the time regardless of the consequences. Public administrators have a responsibility to maintain integrity and serve the public to their best, and in order to do so, they must be willing to expose those who make it hard to deliver effective public service. 

Kantian deontology holds individual public administrators responsible for their own actions (Lacewing, 2009). An individual is expected to keep his end of the bargain regardless of whether others are keeping it or not. This is what separates deontology from utilitarianism, if many public administrators are engaging or covering up corrupt practices, it can be considered ethical when analyzed using utilitarianism. On the other hand, deontologists are against the principle of maximum good because in most cases it violates duty. Public administrators have a duty to the public, and one of that duty is to report any cases of corruption. 

Incorporating Kantian deontology in public administration will create a pool of public servants who have internalized what is right and what is wrong. Lacewing (2009) states that the concepts of good will and duty makes up deontology. Good will focusses on the intention behind an action, such that a public administrator will not just report a corruption case because of the consequences, but because it is the duty of the person to do the right thing. Kant argued that what is good in the good will is not what it achieves, but rather it is the good itself that makes it right. The public sector needs individuals who have internalized goodwill, and are willing to act on it regardless of the consequences of their action. 

Reflection

Various ethical dilemmas analyzed in the class show that the public administration sector is marred with controversies just like any other sector. Unfortunately, some public officials who are supposed to uphold ethical values are also breaking them, putting others in ethical dilemmas where they are confused on what to do next. Ayee (1998) states that the most common ethical dilemma in the public administration sector is the decision to keep silent or speak up in case of a misconduct. Such ethical dilemmas put public servants in a tough position based on what they perceive as the interest of the public and their conception of right and wrong. 

Evidently, different ethical approaches can be used to solve ethical dilemmas, however, some approaches are less direct than others. Utilitarianism is more lenient, and it can be easily used to justify corruption and failure to report cases of corruption in the public sector. It is necessary to emphasize on the need for more absolutist ethical theories in public administration ethics, there should never be an in between regarding doing the right thing. Kantian deontology provides the necessary ethical background for ethical decision making in the public sector by clearly differentiating between what is wrong and what is right. Public administrators have a duty to protect the interests of the public, and the duty should always guide their actions. 

The responsibility for maintaining ethical standards lies in the public service itself, and if properly conceived using the right theoretical background a more ethical public service will be formed. The current systems in place have not solved ethical issues because they are created to detect and punish the wrongdoer, and in worst cases the system punishes the person who reports the wrongdoer (Ayee, 1998). It is the role of every public administrator to reform the system to create an environment where unethical behavior is minimized, and if unethical behavior occurs, swift disciplinary action should be the norm. Public administrators should take it upon themselves to reform the public system and procedures, especially those dealing with accountability. They should take it upon themselves to encourage an ethical environment where unethical practices are not ignored, and where public administrators will feel safe to report wrongdoings without worrying about the consequences. 

To sum up, public administrators are supposed to promote public welfare by all means, not their selfish needs. The official duties of public administrators are supposed to add positive value to the community, hence, abuse of power seen in some of the unethical issues in the public sector is wrong. Public administrators are in a position of public trust, and they should not make it hard for the public to access services from them by engaging in unethical practices. Condoning unethical practices is as good as being involved in them because the public still suffers when administrators fail to report those involved in corruption and other forms of misconduct. Public administrators should reassess their individual ethics to ensure they are aligned with public administration ethics. Individuals who have a strong sense of what is wrong and what is right, and have a duty to do the right thing, are the ones that will change the public sector for good. 

References

Adebayo, A. (2014). Ethical Issues in Public Service. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 4 (5), 410-412.

Aristotle. 1925. Trans., D. Ross. The Nicomachean Ethics . New York: Oxford University Press.

Ayee, J. (1998, December). Ethics in the Public Service. In  A paper delivered at the Second Pan–African Conference of the Ministers of Civil Service, Rabat, Morocco .

Aziz, M. (2014). Ethics in Public Administration: A Study on Sylhet Deputy Commissioner Office.  Ethics in Public Administration: A Study on Sylhet Deputy Commissioner Office (July 19, 2014) .

Bowen, S. (2004). Organizational factors encouraging ethical decision making: An exploration into the case of an exemplar.  Journal of Business Ethics ,  52 (4), 311-324.

Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new Public administration.  Public Administration Review , 263-270.

Garofalo, C., Geuras, D., Lynch, T. D., & Lynch, C. E. (2001). Applying virtue ethics to the challenge of corruption.  Innovation Journal ,  6 (2), 1-12.

Hasnas, J. (2013). Teaching Business Ethics: The Principles Approach. Journal of Business Ethics Education ,  10 , 275-304.

Lacewing, M. (2009).  Philosophy for A2: Unit 3: Key Themes in Philosophy . Routledge.

Lacewing, M. (2005). Emotional Self‐Awareness and Ethical Deliberation.  Ratio ,  18 (1), 65-81.

Luna, W. M. (2009). Foucault and ethical subjectivity.  Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy ,  3 (2), 139-146.

Makrydemetres, A. (2002). Dealing with ethical dilemmas in public administration: The 'ALIR' imperatives of ethical reasoning.  International Review of Administrative Sciences ,  68 (2), 251-266.

Malek, J. (2010). To tell or not to tell? The ethical dilemma of the would-be whistleblower.  Accountability in research ,  17 (3), 115-129.

Mattingly, C. (2012). Two virtue ethics and the anthropology of morality. Anthropological Theory ,  12 (2), 161-184.

Miller, J. (2014). Navigating an Ethical Dilemma . University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering.

Mill, J. S. (2003). Utilitarianism and On Liberty: Including'Essay on Bentham'and Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin.

Puiu, S. (2015). Ethical Dilemmas in the Public Sector.  Management and Marketing Journal ,  13 (1), 57-62.

Radhika, D. (2012). Ethics in Public Administration.  Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research ,  4 (2), 23-31.

Rousseau, J. J. (2013). Ethics and Deontology in Public Administration. Knowledge horizons, 5 (2), 197-200.

Vorster, S. W. (2013). Fighting corruption-a philosophical approach.  In die Skriflig ,  47 (1), 266- 272.