Has Joe done anything unethical, or has he just been stupid?
Joe has not done anything unethical. Everyone, including both the public officials, has the right to privacy and to take part in the life activities at their private homes. Joe had organized a holiday season party at his home, which is considered a private place. Under the public dynamite, a private act of a public officer only becomes unethical and of public interest if such an act affect the job performance of the officer, if it brings to question the accountability of the officer and when it portrays the morality of a public officer in a negative way (Dobel, 2016). Joe was not a habitual drunkard, and thus, his job was not affected in any way. Neither did his act brought the question of accountability in his work as a public officer. He did not, therefore, act unethically.
Should the reporter print the story?
Exposure to the private life of a public officer may seem to violate their private lives and increases public scrutiny. According to the code of ethics of the society of professional journalists, private people have a greater right to control the information about themselves than the public officials (Dobel, 2016). The public members, however, have the right to know about the public officials, especially in the cases where an act will eventually affect the performance of the employee. Joe succumbed to drinking, meaning he will be unable to continue with his work as the public officer. Under such a situation, even though it happened in his private life, the public has the right to know what made the public officer succumb, and thus, the report can print the story.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Is Joe's home a protected reserve?
Joe’s home is not a protected reserve. The lived in his private home away from his place of work and where he had the right to enjoy every level of freedom and right to privacy.
Changing the circumstances clarifies the mode of reasoning and pinpoints critical factors in making judgments. Closed questions force decision making; open-ended questions encourage analysis. Would your answers to the three preceding questions change if:
Joe's drinking was habitual, perhaps affecting his performance on the job?
If Joe’s drinking were habitual and his job performance was being affected, then his drinking actions could have become unethical even if it was in private. While public officers have the right to private life, their private actions should not negatively affect their job performance. As long as a private life action interferes with the job performance of a public officer, it becomes of public interests because the service delivery to the public gets affected. In a case where the performance of a public officer is affected by habitual drinking, the accountability of the officer is affected, and thus, the public has the right to know. Public officers are required to uphold high moral standards, even in private life (Svara, 2014). Excessive drinking to an extent where the performance of the officer is affected is considered an irresponsible behavior that warrants public scrutiny. The media, therefore, needs to report such cases because they attract public interest. Members of the public have the right to hold accountable the public officers for their work responsibilities and the level of their performance. His home is, however, not a protected reserve because it is his private residential place.
Had Joe made several racist remarks during the party?
Even though the public officers have the right to privacy, they are expected to uphold high moral standards in society, whether in public or private. Issue such as racism is not an immoral, and unacceptable code of conducts for all the public officers irrespective of whether it is in their private lives or the public. Under the public duties versus the private life, the actions of a public officer attract public interest if such an action portrays the low moral values of the officer, affect their job performance and affect the accountability of the officer. When Joe had made racist remarks, then he violates the moral values of a public officer. Public officers are not required to be racists, whether at work or in private life. Therefore, this portrays him as an unethical officer. Racist remarks negatively portray the characters of Joe and therefore, warrants public concern. The members of the public need to know the unethical conduct of their leaders and judge them on whether they deserve to be holding public offices (Svara, 2014). The reporter should, therefore, print the story is Joe had made racist remarks so that the members of the public can understand the conduct of those holding public offices and hold them accountable.
Joe was a chief administrative officer in a city of 300,000?
The chief administrative officer still a public servant who other than the public life, has a private life to live. Organizing a party at home for Joe if he was a chief administrative officer remains unethical as long as the act does not interfere with his job performance, a public officer requires accountability and moral values. The members of the public, however, have the right to know and understand the matters that affect the public offices, and in such a case, the 300000 residents of the city would have a public interest to know what happened. The reporter would then be required to print the matter for the public to read.
Would your answers to the first two questions change if it had been an office party in a local restaurant?
An office party is not a private life event, but rather a public matter for the public officers. The conduct of the public officers during the office party can attract public interest. Even if the party entails taking alcohol, the public officers are expected to do it with moderation to avoid showing the bad picture to the members of the public who are out to scrutinize the morality of their leaders. For events that are not considered private, public servants must show dignity and good characters. Based on the public dynamite, people can hold the public officers of unethical conduct for portraying characters that are deemed unwarranted and shameful. For this case, Joe would have been unethical for excessive drinking had he done it in an office party. At the same time, being an office party, probably organized by public resources, the members of the public not only have the interest to know about the party but also to get information about the conduct of the officers during the party. It is an avenue where the members of the public can use to scrutinize and judge the conduct of those holding public offices. As a result, the reporter needs to print the matter because it attracts public interest.
Do the public opinion polls affect your answers? Explain
The public opinion polls do not affect the answers. There are laws and ethical code of conduct that govern the conduct of the public officers both in public and private. The answers are based on these laws and code of ethics. Even in the private life, public officers must show high moral values and must not be engaged in issues such as racism and sexual assaults as these violate the required ethical code of conduct of a public officer.
Should public opinion affect a manager's ethical choices? Explain
The opinion of the public should not affect the ethical choices of a manager. Rather, the manager should get guidance from the societal moral values and standards and the professional code of conduct required of a public officer. Even though the members of the public can have an interest, their opinion may not be the right guiding principles for an ethical decision. All professions have the required ethical code of conduct that guides their professionals on how to conduct themselves. The manager should always rely on this code of conduct as the guiding principle while making decisions (Patapan, 2017). Similarly, every society has the required moral values for its members. The values guide a public officer while making ethical decisions. For example, in a society where sexual assault is unacceptable conduct, a manager needs to adhere to such moral values.
Do people in public lives have a right to any privacy? Explain
The people in public lives have the right to privacy. However, the public right and demand to know always clashes with the privacy rights of the public officials. While not at work, public officers have the right to remain in private life, and the person should not share it on the media. However, the right to privacy is dependent on various questions. First, does the behavior in private life affect job performance? Does the disclosure affect accountability and public trust in the officer? Does the act of the officer in private against the moral values of the society? As long as the conduct of a public officer does not affect the job performance, accountability and is not against the moral values, then such officer has the right to privacy away from public eyes (Patapan, 2017). However, a violation of any of the three issues in the question can call for the public interest and a loss of the right to privacy. Therefore, the public officers have the right to privacy, but such rights depend on the actual action and behavior of such an officer in private life.
References
Dobel, J. P.,(2016). Integrity in public service. Dobel, JP (1990). Integrity in the Public Service. Public Administration Review , 50 (3), 354-66.
Patapan, H.,(2017). ‘Educating Devils’: Theoretical Reflections on Ethics and Governance. In Motivating Ministers to Morality (pp. 37-50). Routledge.
Svara, J. H.,(2014). Who are the keepers of the code? Articulating and upholding ethical standards in the field of public administration. Public Administration Review , 74 (5), 561-569.
