Appropriateness of Government Official Lying to Public
Many philosophers have come up with arguments to support exemptions to the collective social proscription on dishonesty. Some hold that lies can be necessary for the face of coercion or intimidation (Shafritz, Russell, & Borick, 2013). They maintain that individuals should not be honest to persons who do not deserve to know the truth. In some instances, public officials are forced to stretch the truth to guarantee public safety. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the security of citizens (Bjola, 2014). The amendment prohibits law enforcement agents from conducting unreasonable searches or apprehending people without sufficient evidence. Bjola (2014) claims that police encounter challenges in striking a balance between upholding the constitution and guaranteeing public safety.
The courts and society concur that police officers cannot fight crime efficiently without having to conceal some information from the public. At times, they have to disguise themselves or lie to persons being investigated to enable them to gather the necessary evidence. For instance, if the police want to apprehend a person accused of child pornography, they require searching the suspect’s house and even computer to gather proof. In such an instance, it would be appropriate for them to lie to get the suspect’s consent.
A government official is allowed to stretch the truth in the fight against crimes. For example, undercover officers cannot succeed in their missions without a level of dishonesty. Telling the truth would blow their cover, therefore subjecting themselves and the society to risks. The courts have confirmed that lying to criminals does not amount to an infringement on their constitutional rights (Shafritz et al., 2013). Indeed, such deceiving actions are an essential and efficient way of combating crimes. Shafritz et al. (2013) allege that public officers are allowed to lie if telling the truth might compromise national security. For instance, in the fight against terrorism, officials may conceal information from the public to prevent the possible leak of classified data that may give criminals an upper hand.
How Hierarchy of Ethics Governs the Behavior of Public Officers
The hierarchy of ethics refers to a set of principles that govern decision-making and operations in the public sector. According to Downe, Cowell, and Morgan (2016), the rules have a significant influence on the behaviors of federal officers. The hierarchy of ethics places public interests before personal goals. Thus, a public officer is expected to act in ways that benefit the general public. Downe et al. (2016) aver, “The hierarchy of ethics requires public officers to have due regard for the rights, duties, and proper interests of all others” (p. 901). Downe et al. (2016) maintain that individuals in the highest-ranking public offices have greater moral obligations than those below them. The primary goal of the public offices is to serve citizens. Consequently, the highest-ranking officers have a unique responsibility to nurture intelligence and good characters that are essential in delivering services to the public.
In other words, the officers are expected to be role models to their subordinates. The exploitation of lower-ranking officers by their seniors contradicts the spirit of the hierarchy of ethics. Public administrators have a right to exercise their discretional powers. Nevertheless, the hierarchy of ethics requires them to make sure that their rights do not hinder those of the people that they serve. The administrators have to guarantee that they safeguard public property and exercise their powers in line with the established labor ethics.
References
Bjola, C. (2014). The ethics of secret diplomacy: A contextual approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 10(1), 85-100.
Downe, J., Cowell, R., & Morgan, K. (2016). What determines ethical behavior in public organizations: Is it rules or leadership? Public Administration Review, 76(6), 898-909.
Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W., & Borick, C. P. (2013). Introducing public administration. Upper Saddle River; NJ: Pearson.