Ethics has a significant role in the public service. Personalities need to emulate and practice proper ethics. Particularly, this relates to those serving in public administrative dockets. Adams and Balfour, (2009), emphasize the need to maintain the society in an ethical state.
The two authors propose two basic approaches that may help in preventing the humanity from ethically “coming apart at the seams.” The present changes within the American society are noted.
The sociopolitical and economic factors have increasingly transformed within the U.S. Consequently, these have impacted on the state of ethics within the public service.
The interconnection between liberalism and individual ethics is obvious. The authors examine the American society from the period of the historical revolution. The ability of liberalism to impose phenomenal ethical challenges within humanity is also indicated.
Authority must be exercised in a manner that motivates controlled freedom. However, the effects of globalization on the morality of the society require great precaution (Adams & Balfour, 2009). The authors indicate the significance of systems that avail information and critical decisions to the general public.
Such systems are the spring board for public ethics. The nature of mankind and the liberalism of fear interact in a degenerative manner.
The authors argue that “putting cruelty first” may not be the appropriate methodology of dealing with situations within the public service (Adams & Balfour, 2009).
Emotional approach to situations within the public service only results into a state of administrative evil. The importance of democratic deliberative processes within the general society is noted. Through deliberative processes, individuals seek to acquire a self comprehension (Adams & Balfour, 2009).
Additionally, they learn to understand and be patient with others. Application of this methodology enhances transformation processes without ethical disputes within the society. In this process, citizens learn to be become tolerant with one another.
Furthermore, there is magnified state of harmony that results into good state of public ethics. The authors also critically examine the general role of the community in enhancing public ethics. An inclusive autonomous society develops the public life as well as its public ethics concurrently.
This methodology helps to save the entire community from an ethical crisis. In this methodology, the authors reiterate the significance of the recognition and definition of the public.
The definition of the term “public” depicts important implications. For instance, it binds public servants to speak publicly on policy issues (Adams & Balfour, 2009). The recognition and practice of viable citizenship by all public servants is indicative of a good state of public ethics.
There is an examination of public ethics dependent on liberalism of fright. This form of ethics originates from a misanthropic perception of human kind. In this context, there is a perception that mankind ought to know that not just the minimalist public state of ethics may be workable.
People must be aware of the impacts of public ethics dependent on grand schemes relating to human perfectibility. Another methodology is dependent on the processes of deliberative democracy.
This denotes the significance of public engagement and participation within all levels of governance (Adams & Balfour, 2009). Active citizenship implies partaking in governance.
Moreover, it involves the practice of decisive resolution with the observation of public interest. This practice enhances both political as well as moral competencies of personalities. Furthermore, it helps to reinforce the societal bonds among them.
References
Adams, G. B. & Balfour, D. L. (2009). Unmasking administrative evil. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.