ETHICAL VALUES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

LECTURE 2ND SEMESTER DR. ANGELA. B. ABIQUI

DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS

Ethics is the: Practical science of the morality of human actions. Scientific inquiry into the principles of morality Science of human acts with reference to right and wrong Study of human conduct from the standpoint of morality Study of the rectitude of human conduct

Science which lays down the principles of right living Practical science that guides us in our actions that we live rightly and well Normative and practical science, based on reason, which studies human conduct and provides norm for its natural integrity and honesty. Investigation of life (Plato)

ELEMENTS OF THE DEFINITION

1.

2. 3.

Science systematic study or a system of scientific conclusions clearly demonstrated, derived from clearly established principle and duly coordinated (philosophical science) Morality quality of right or wrong in human acts Human acts acts done with knowledge and consent

IMPERATIVES OR SINE QUA NON OF ETHICS

1.
2. 3.

The existence of God as Supreme being The existence of human freedom The existence of an afterlife or the immortality of the soul

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR A SUPREME BEING

Without the existence of God or Supreme Being, Ethics would make no sense Why? 1. there is no reason for want to deny himself evil but pleasurable acts if there were no final judgment to dispense justice. 2. when one speaks of morality, retribution is presupposed; that is good acts are rewarded and bad acts are punished

Who is the Arbiter of Morality?

Christians

: Supreme Being, personal God : belief in the Natural Moral Law Indians : Supreme Being, Brahman, the totality of reality : general law. Rha that oversees all the things in the universe and sees to it that everything is brought to its end :special law, karma which governs everything that man acts good acts are rewarded. Hence, for the Indians, there is no need for personal judge because karma tales care that justice is strictly meted out.

Chinese : law or order or nature called tao(way) : those who conform to nature, performs good act, those who acts in a contrary manner performs evil : upon good actions are health and good life and upon bad actions are sickness and bad luck

THE EXISTENCE OF HUMAN FREEDOM

No ethics is likewise possible without human freedom Responsibility, an indispensable factor in ethics,is meaningless if man were not free. Retribution is deserved only if man had the choice to do or not to do, to follow or not to follow Freedom always involve of whether to do or not to do

THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE AFTER DEATH

Christian: if good deeds are not rewarded in this life, or if evil deed are unpunished in this world, proper retribution will be done in the next life. The immortality of the soul is the cornerstone of Ethics. Indians: believe that life on earth is hell and punishment for evil deeds is rebirth, which means that man comes back to earth again and again until he gets Nirvana.

The reincarnation, rebirth or metempsychosis is retribution or the proper compensation of good or evil acts. Chinese : this-world people and their philosophy is focused on life on earth not afterlife. They believe that every act carries it own punishment or compensation depending whether one conforms to the law.

STANDARD OF MORALITY

How can one know that an act is good or bad? What is the yardstick or standard to determine the morality of an act? What is the standard of morality?

MORALITY

Morality: quality of goodness or badness in a human act Norm of morality The standard of right and wrong in human acts The reason why certain acts are morally right and why certain acts are wrong

THE QUESTION ON THE NORM OF MORALITY

How is morality related to mans nature? A good man is one who lives and behaves in an way befitting his human purpose and nature. A good act is that which is natural to man as a human being endowed primarily with reason and will. The morality of an act is grounded on the nature of the one acting.

The proximate norm of morality in mans act is human nature. The ultimate norm is the divine nature.

VALUES

Are perceptions of individuals, organizations and societies of the desirable ways or mechanisms to achieve goals and objectives. Are the established ideals of life, objects, customs, ways of acting and the like that the members of the given society regard as desirable. Is the objective norm of a certain community

HOW TO CHOOSE VALUES

1. Permanent values or lasting values must be preferred over temporary or perishable values. 2. Values favored by a greater number of people must be preferred over those that appeal only to a few. 3. Values that are essential must be preferred over those that are accidental. 4. Values that give greater satisfaction must be preferred over those that provide short-lived pleasures.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL VALUES (MV)

1.

2.

MV presents an objective and subjective aspect. - objective: affects the object of an act - subjective: affects the person itself MV are estimable. Loveable and desirable of itself and for itself -of itself and for itself: we do good for the sake of what we are doing , not doing good for other purposes.

3. MV do not allow for holidays - do good always and be good at all times

PERSONAL INTEGRITY

A condition where an individual strives to make his official act and personal life coherent and consistent. Presumes that an individual makes commitments and disciplines his actions in accordance with his commitments.

HUMAN ACTS

Not every act which proceeds from man is human act as used and understood in ethics.

HUMAN ACTS IN ETHICS MEAN

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

The (free) voluntary acts of man Acts done with knowledge and consent Acts which are proper to man as man, because, of all animals, he alone has knowledge and freedom of will. Acts which, we are conscious, are under our control and for which we are responsible Acts where man is master, which he has the power of doing or nfot doing as he pleases

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IMPORTANT IN THE STUDY OF ETHICS

1.

2.

Immoral is the contradictory of moral. It means contrary to the rules of right conduct. Amoral means indifference, I,e it is neither good nor bad, in itself Moral is distinguished from normal in that the latter refers to a physical or psychological standard and has no reference to moral rectitude. A perfectly normal person can be very immoral in his life, whereas an abnormal person can be very moral in his acts and live in accordance with the moral law.

3. Perversity involves moral turpitude and responsibility whereas peculiarity or anomaly does not.

THE MORAL PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN ACTIONS HAVING TWO EFFECTS

Is it morally right to do an act which entails bad as well good consequence? Anwer: Yes, but with conditions: The act itself should be good, or at least morally indifferent. The evil effect should not be directly intended, but morally allowed to happen as regrettable side issue. There should be a reason grave in doing the act The evil effect should not outweigh the good.

1. 2. 3. 4.

First condition: explanation

If the act itself is bad, then we would be doing evil that good may come from it. The end does not justify the means. We should employ bad means to attain a good end. We may do evil that good may result.

2nd condition: explanation

If the evil be directly intended, the act would be done for the sake of evil and this is again mortal law

3rd condition: explanation

The acts entail bad effects and we should trifle with bad effects

4th condition: explanation

It the evil effects be greater, then the intention and motive in doing the act would be more for evil then for good and this is against the moral law.

FACTORS THAT LESSEN ACCOUNTABILITY

Ignorance a. vencible ignorance b. invincible ignorance 2. Concupiscence (passion) a. antecedent concupiscence b. consequent concupiscence 3. Fear 4. violence
1.

IGNORANCE

Is the absence of intellectual knowledge Types:

1.

2.

Vincible ignorance can be dispelled or overcome by the amount of diligence. Invincible ignorance cannot not be overcome by any amount of diligence or effort because under the circumstances it is impossible for one to know.

In vincible ignorance, there is culpability with regard to ones ignorance which is due to ones negligence or omission; and consequently, there would still be accountability on the part of the doer for his action.

PRINCIPLES
1.

2.

Invincible ignorance excuses and relieves the agent of responsibility. Acts done in invincible ignorance are, therefore, not voluntary and the agent is not held responsible for them. Vincible ignorance does not destroy voluntariness, nor responsibility. Acts done in vincible ignorance are still voluntary and the agent is still responsible for them.

CONCUPISCENCE
Affect the voluntariness of an action. Types: 1 Antecedent concupiscence occurs spontaneously without stimulating 2. Consequent concupiscence arises at the command or continues with the consent of the will.

PRINICPLES
1.

2.

Antecedent concupiscence lessens but does not remove voluntariness and responsibility Consequent concupiscence neither lessens nor destroys responsibility.

FEAR AND VIOLENCE

1.

2.

Moral principles When we act because of fear, our will is dragged along, and so freedom is restricted and our responsibility is diminished correspondingly. Violence is an impulse from without tending to force the agent to act against his will.

THE PRICIPLE OF COECION

Under certain conditions it is morally right to use force or employ violence in defense of certain basic rights, even if by the employment of such force or violence certain evil effects or effects may follow, such as the death of the aggressor.

Justifications of the moral principle

1. 2. 3.

4.

Man as person possesses certain fundamental rights The existence of a right entails a corresponding duty on others to respect this right. That if these rights are violated or denied, the possessor thereof has the right to defend, and use the means necessary to defend his rights. Sometimes the employment of force or violence resulting in bloodshed or death of an aggressor is the only possible way to defend said right.

3. The evil effects that often follow or accompany the use of force are merely concomitant and resultant factors and if not directly intended are extrinsic to the nature of the means (act) used and therefore does not contradict the principles that one should not employ intrinsically evil menas to attain a good end. The use of force or violence independent of the end or the effects it produces is not bad in itself.

4. There are 2 effects involved here, one good and one bad: defense of the act of the possessor which is good and harm on the aggressor which is bad; and hence to do an act which brings these two effects may be justified under the conditions provided in the principle of the twofold effects.

5. This likewise in consonance with the morally sound principle that if one had to choose between two evils, one should choose the lesser. Herein, the evil effects of defensive acts are less than the evil acts of offense. Offense justifies defense as long as no greater harm be inflicted than what is necessary for defense according to the morally established principle of the twofold effect.

VIOLENCE AND HABIT

Principle of passive violence: acts done owing to violence are not voluntary provided that due resistance is made. Principle of acts done by force of habit: acts done by force of habit are still voluntary, at least in cause, as long as the habit is allowed to stay.