Both civil services ethics and professional ethics in the technical-rational tradition draw upon both teleological and deontological ethics. These two types of ethics center on the decision-making process of the individual within the context of modern organizations and as a member of a vocational or professional community. The purpose of deontological ethics in the civil sphere is to protect the integrity of the organization by assisting individuals in conforming to professional norms, avoiding mistakes and misdeeds that violate the trust of the civil community, and ensuring that civil officials in a constitutional republic are accountable to the people through their elected representatives. At the same time, with regard to the UPSC examination, it is strongly recommended to work for the betterment of society by using discretion in the implementation of laws and regulations and by demonstrating inventiveness in response to shifting circumstances. A “good” government worker should avoid both extremes of rule-bound conduct and undermining the rule of law with individual judgments and interests. Both of these behaviours are considered to be counterproductive. In order to operate in an efficient and successful manner, as well as to retain public faith in government, it is pretty self-evident that civil organizations are dependent on at least this degree of ethical judgment. However, it is essential to acknowledge that the ethical norms of an organization or profession are not sufficient in and of themselves to guarantee ethical conduct or even competent behavior. This is something that must be acknowledged. It is possible to be a “good” or responsible professional while at the same time committing or contributing to acts of administrative evil. This is the most fundamental ethical challenge that a professional faces within a technical-rational culture. Despite the extensive literature on civil service ethics, there is little recognition of this challenge. According to harmon (1995), technical-rational ethics has a difficult time dealing with what mailgram (1974) referred to as the “agentic shift.” This refers to the situation in which a professional or administrator acts responsibly toward the hierarchy of authority, civil policy, and the requirements of the job or profession, while abdicating any personal responsibility, much less social responsibility, for the content or effects of decisions or actions. Whenever the technical-rational view of public service ethics is taken into consideration, the personal conscience, sometimes known as an individual’s moral compass, is always secondary to the structures of power. The former is considered to be “subjective” and “personal,” but the preliminary examinations for the ias are considered to be “objective” and “civil.” The ethical framework that is present within a technical-rational system therefore posits the primacy of an abstract, utility-maximizing individual, while at the same time binding professionals to organizations in ways that transform them into reliable conduits for the dictates of legitimate authority. This is true even when the legitimate authority is pursuing a policy that is unethical or even evil. If a person is able to be a good administrator or professional while still committing acts of evil, then the ethical system in question is, by definition, empty of any moral substance or even morally perverse. No one in the public service should be able to have peace of mind with the idea that ethical conduct is characterized by doing things in the proper manner, given the fact that administrative evil is a reality. Norms of legality, efficiency, and effectiveness, regardless of how “professional” they may be, do not necessarily promote or protect the well-being of humans, particularly the well-being of “surplus populations.” Surplus populations are the most vulnerable and superfluous members of society, and their numbers are growing in the early years of this century.
I love myBlogd
Author
jackemails@gmail.com