Tuncay Unal, PhD
tuncay.unal@gc4ss.org

Ethics in public administration is not simply about choosing between right and wrong; rather, it often involves selecting among competing courses of action that are all morally justifiable. Public administrators frequently encounter situations in which they must decide between “right” alternatives, a circumstance commonly described as an ethical conundrum (Amrhein, 2005). Starratt (1994) argues that ethical behavior requires a conscious and principled commitment to a particular course of action when administrators are faced with multiple legitimate choices. In the context of public service, ethical conduct reflects not only individual morality but also responsibility to the public interest. To better understand ethics in public administration, it is equally important to clarify what ethics is not.

First, ethics should not be equated with personal feelings. Although emotions may offer useful signals in ethical situations, they cannot serve as reliable guides for public decision-making. As Steinman, Richardson, and McEnroe (1998) note, individuals may feel guilt when acting unethically, while others may feel justified or even satisfied despite unethical behavior. Public administrators, therefore, cannot rely solely on personal emotions when making decisions that affect citizens, institutions, and public trust.

Ethics in public administration is also distinct from religion. While many religious traditions promote high moral standards, ethics in public service must apply to all individuals regardless of religious belief. Because public institutions serve diverse populations, ethical standards must be grounded in universal principles rather than faith-based doctrines. Moreover, religious teachings may not address the full range of complex administrative dilemmas encountered in modern governance.

Similarly, ethics cannot be reduced to compliance with the law. Although legal systems often reflect ethical values, laws may diverge from moral standards. In some political systems, laws may serve narrow interests or function primarily as instruments of power rather than justice. Even in democratic systems, laws may lag behind emerging ethical concerns or fail to regulate certain administrative practices effectively. Consequently, public administrators must recognize that legality does not automatically equate to ethical legitimacy.

Ethics is also not synonymous with culturally accepted norms. Administrative practices that are socially accepted within a particular culture may still be ethically problematic. Historical examples—such as slavery in the United States prior to the Civil War—demonstrate that cultural acceptance does not guarantee moral validity. Public administrators must therefore evaluate policies and practices critically, even when they reflect long-standing social traditions.

Nor is ethics equivalent to science. Scientific and technical knowledge can inform administrative decisions by providing data and analysis, but it cannot determine what ought to be done. Science explains behavior and predicts outcomes, whereas ethics addresses normative questions of responsibility, justice, and obligation. The fact that a policy or technology is feasible does not mean it is ethically acceptable in public administration.

If ethics is not grounded solely in emotions, religion, law, cultural norms, or science, then what guides ethical decision-making in public administration? Scholars have identified several ethical frameworks that help administrators evaluate competing values and responsibilities.

The utilitarian approach emphasizes outcomes, advocating actions that produce the greatest good or the least harm for the largest number of people. In public administration, this approach focuses on policy consequences and seeks to maximize public benefit while minimizing social costs (Noddings, 2003).

The rights-based approach prioritizes the protection of individual rights and human dignity. From this perspective, public administrators must respect citizens’ fundamental rights and autonomy, particularly in decisions that significantly affect personal freedoms. In complex administrative dilemmas, dialogue and deliberation become essential to balancing competing rights (Noddings, 2003).

The justice approach emphasizes fairness, equity, and impartiality in administrative action. Rooted in Aristotelian thought, this framework holds that equals should be treated equally and unequals differently when justified. In contemporary public administration, this translates into nondiscriminatory policies and equitable service delivery (Starratt, 1994).

The professional approach highlights the ethical responsibilities inherent in public service roles and institutions. It stresses respect, empathy, and commitment to social conditions that sustain the public good, such as effective legal systems, public safety, healthcare, and education. Ethical reasoning, from this perspective, is grounded in professional standards and societal obligations (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2001).

The community or virtue-based approach focuses on moral character and the cultivation of virtues essential to democratic governance. Honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, fairness, and care are central values that guide public administrators toward actions that promote collective well-being and public trust (Furman, 2004).

Although these approaches may not always yield identical answers to the question of what is ethical, each provides valuable insight for evaluating administrative decisions. Together, they offer a comprehensive framework for ethical reasoning in public administration.

Furman (2004) emphasizes that ethical decision-making requires both a structured method and self-awareness. Similarly, Shapiro and Stefkovich (2001) argue that ethical competence in public service depends on sensitivity to moral issues and continuous practice in ethical reflection. Over time, ethical reasoning becomes internalized, allowing administrators to respond more effectively to routine dilemmas. However, complex cases often require deliberate analysis and the inclusion of multiple perspectives.

Finally, Maddix (1999) observes that ethical blindness in public organizations may arise not because dilemmas are absent, but because individuals have learned to ignore them. Some administrators fail to recognize ethical issues, while others become desensitized due to organizational pressures or incentives. Drawing from professional experience, this phenomenon is particularly visible in fields such as journalism and public communication, where the urgency to disseminate information may overshadow ethical reflection. In public administration, such tendencies can undermine accountability and public trust if ethical considerations are consistently subordinated to expediency.

References

Amrhein, C. (2005). Decide in advance how to deal with ethical dilemmas. American agent & broker, 77, 3

Furman, G. C. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 2

Maddix, T. (1999). CMA management. Hamilton, 73, 9, 20

Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2^nd ed).

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Shapiro, J. P. and Stefkovich, J.A. (2001). Ethical leadership and decision making in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school. London: Falmer Press

Steinman, S. O., Richardson, N. F., & McEnroe, T (1998). The ethical decision-making manual for helping professionals. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks / Cole.