Ethics in Public Service

Evan Simpson is a philosophy professor and dean of humanities at
McMaster University, and editor of Anti-foundationalism and Practical
Reasoning: Conversations Between Hermeneutics and Analysis.

Most of these 12 essays were written for a conference at Durham
University in 1990. They have been revised in the light of discussions
on and after the occasion and are complemented by a further pair of
articles that were prepared to make the volume more comprehensive.
Central issues concerning the rights and responsibilities of public
officials are thus treated in a number of overlapping ways. The topics
range from the meaning of ethical behavior for bureaucrats to its
promotion through education, codes of conduct, and other means.

A good start is provided by the amusing, pithy, and provocative essay
of Brian Cubbon, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office in Britain
through most of the 1980s. His voice of experience and reflection
includes the splendid observation that “[o]ur system of government
defies all management models. Where else would you have a board of
directors consisting mainly of marketing men conducting all the key
operations themselves, with the thinking at a much lower level in the
organization?” As for ethics, the only duty of a civil servant, he
maintains, is to serve the government of the day.

In effect, this judgment forms the thesis to which most other
contributors respond. They note that in organizations as complex as
modern democratic governments, public servants may be responsible to
both the public and their political superiors. The complicated issue of
“whistle blowing” is one result. Another is the problem of “dirty
hands,” in which one may have to contravene normal canons of law or
morality in order to fulfil other duties. Yet another is the extent to
which the exercise of administrative discretion may be allowed to have
an adverse impact upon citizens. Taken together, the several discussions
indicate that Cubbon’s neat moral universe has become cluttered by
obscurities in the relationship between reasons of state and the public
interest.

Generally, the spirit of Montesquieu prevails. Invoked by Paul Finn in
one of the post-conference papers, it holds that the laws of one nation
are unlikely to be appropriate to others. This appreciation of
particularity permits useful comparison but frustrates definitive,
general solutions.