ETHICS, INTEGRITY AND APTITUDE

IAS TOPIC - 1
G.S.
PAPER-IV

ETHICS AND HUMAN INTERFACE

Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in Human actions

Meaning and definitions

The term ‘ethics’ corresponds to the Greek word ethica. Ethica is derived from the word
ethos meaning ‘character’, ‘customs’, ‘usage’ or ‘habits’. Ethics has been described as a ‘moral
philosophy’. The word moral’ comes from the Latin word mores which signifies customs or
habits. Conduct is the interpreter of character. The character of a man finds its expression in
and through his conduct. The conduct of a person springs out of, and expresses, his/her
character, and is good or bad. Hence, Ethics may also be defined as the science of character as
expressing itself in right or wrong conduct or action. Ethics discusses men’s voluntary acts, their
habits and customs, or in other words, their characters, the principles on which they habitually
act and considers what it is that constitutes the rightness or wrongness of those principles.

There are some ideals in life. These ideals provideus some standard of judgment by
which we say that one form of conduct is better than the other. Ethics is defined as the science
or general study of the ideals involved in human life.

William Lillie defines Ethics as the normative science of the conduct of human beings
living in societies. This definition says, firstly, that ethics is a science, i.e., it gives us systematic
knowledge about a particular set of related events or objects. Secondly, ethics is a normative
science, because it does not merely describe the standards by which we judge, it is also concerned
with the validity or truth of these standards. Thirdly, ethics deals with the human conduct; and
conduct is “a collective name for voluntary actions.” A voluntary action is awillful action, which
a man could have done differently if he had so chosen. Ethics, therefore, deals with human
actions, and not with actions of lower animals. Ethics is confined to the study of conduct of
human beings living in the societies. Without social background, a human being would have
not been a real human being capable of takingright and wrong actions.

Ethics, as a science of morality, discusses the rightness and wrongness of human actions.
Here ‘actions’ mean ‘voluntary actions’. Therefore, Ethics discusses the nature of voluntary
actions, the dis-tinction between voluntary and non-voluntary actions, and other related topics,
e.g. desire, motive, intention etc.

Ethics is primarily concerned with moral judgments or the judg-ments of right and wrong.
Moral judgment refers to the moral standard by which we judge actions. The question of moral
standard is intimately related to the question of the ultimate end or the highest good. The

1
actions which are Conducive to this moral ideal are good or right, and those that do not conform
to it are wrong or bad. Ascertainment of the moral ideal or ultimate end is thebusiness of
Ethics. Different thinkers have laid down different moral ideals. According to some, the moral
ideal is a Law; to some others it is pleasure or happiness; to some it is duty for duty’s sake; and
to some again it is perfection or self-realisation. The business of Ethics is to explain these ideals
and to determine which one is the best and acceptable.

The consciousness of right and wrong is accompanied by the consciousness of ‘oughtness’,

duty or moral obligation. When we are aware of something which is right, we also know that it
is our duty to do what is right. Kant says that there is no meaning in ‘right’ unless it
involves the ‘ought’. Thus the ideas of obligation, or duty and rights come within the scope of
Ethics.

Ethics deals with moral judgment which leads to the questions as to which is the real
subject of moral judgment, what should be the object of moral judgment, and what is the
nature of the faculty of moral judgment.

Every science has certain fundamental postulates. Ethics as a science has also certain
fundamental postulates,viz-, Personality, Reason, and Freedom of will. Ethics, therefore,
concerns itself with the discussion of these postulates.

Conscience is another name of the moral faculty. Ethics cannot remain indifferent to
the discussion of the nature of conscience and different theories relating to it.

Man has freedom of will and, therefore, man has to take the moral responsibility of his
actions. A wrong-doer is responsible for his wrong deeds, and he should be punished for wrong-
doing. Punishment is ethically justified. Ethics, thus, deals with punishment and its different
theories.

Though Ethics has a definite range of subject matters for its discussion, yet its primary
aim is to attempt a definition of the highest good of man. In this attempt Ethics has indirectly
to deal with several problems which are psychological, philosophical, sociological and political
in nature. The psychological problems with which Ethics is concerned are those of the nature
of voluntary actions, springs of action and freedom of will. The philosophical problems are
those of the real nature of human personality, man’s place in the universe, freedom of will,
immortality of the soul etc. The sociological problem in Ethics is that relating to the relation
between individual and society; and the political problems are those of the relation between
the individual and the state and the moral basis of the state.

Right and Wrong

When we pass moral judgment on the actions of a man, we generally use the terms right
and wrong. Ethics has been defined as the science of rightness and wrongness of conduct.

The term ‘right’ is derived from the Latin ‘rectus’ which means straight or according to
rule. When an action is said to be right, it means that it conforms to the rule or law. The term
‘wrong’ is related to the word ‘wring’ which means ‘twisted’, i.e., not according to rule. Rightness

2
or wrongness of an action consists in its conformity with the rule or not. Right action means
that which is in conformity with the moral law. Wrong action, on the other hand, is an action
which does not conform to the moral law. It is thus evident that the notions of ‘right’ and
‘wrong’ have a special reference to rule or law.

The word ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are used of actions that are in some way fitting to their
circumstances. The fittingness of a right action often appears to consist in its conformity to
some rule. It is with reference to the moral law that an action is judged to be right or wrong.

Every law presupposes and end which is realised by it. The end that is realised by the
moral law is called the good. Therefore, the right action is what subserves the supreme end of
life or the highest good; and wrong action is what is opposed to this end. The notion of ‘right’ is
thus subordinate to ‘good’. An action is right if it is a means to the good.

Sciences are usually classified into two groups—

(1) The group of theoretical, positive, natural or descriptive sciences, and

(2) The group of normative, appreciative or regulative sciences.

Positive sciences are those which seek to discover the origin of things, to trace the line of
their development, and to discover the actual order of thing. Physics, Psychology etc., belong to
the group of positive sciences, Psychology analyses the processes of thinking, feeling, willing
and other mental phenomena with a view to establishing universal or general principles.
Psychology describes the mental processes as they are without any reference to an ideal or
standard. Psychology never concerns itself with the worth or value of the mental facts, normative
sciences on the other hand, judge the value of the facts terms of an ideal. Normative sciences
are concerned not with factual judgments, but with judgments of what ought to be. Ethics is a
normative, science. It is concerned with judgment of value or what ought to be. Ethics is the
‘science of the ideals in conduct’.

Ethics seeks to determine the nature of the norm or ideal or standard, and seeks to
enquire into the fittingness of human actions to this ideal. Ethics is not concerned with giving
a mere description of human conduct. It is primarily concerned with what ought to be the right
type of conduct. Ethics is connected, not with judgment of fact, but with judgment of value.
Hence Ethics is a normative science.

Salient aspects of ethics in public administration

1. Maxim of Legality and Rationality: An administrator will follow the law and rules that
are framed to govern and guide policies and decisions.

2. Maxim of Responsibility and Accountability: An administrator would not hesitate to

accept responsibility for his decision and actions. He would hold himself morally
responsible for his actions and for the use of his discretion while making decisions.
Moreover, he would be willing to be held accountable to higher authorities of governance
and even to the people who are the ultimate beneficiaries of his decisions and actions.

3
3. Maxim of Work Commitment: An administrator would be committed to his duties and
perform his work with involvement, intelligence and dexterity. As Swami Vivekanand
observed:”Every duty is holy and devotion to duty is the highest form of worship.” This
would also entail a respect for time, punctuality and fulfillment of promises made. Work
is considered not as a burden but as an opportunity to serve and constructively contribute
to society.

4. Maxim of Excellence: An administrator would ensure the highest standards of quality

and administrative decisions and actions and would not compromise with such standards
just because of convenience or complacency. In a competitive international environment,
an administrative system should faithfully adhere to the imperatives of Total Quality
Management (TQM).

5. Maxim of Fusion: An administrator would rationally bring about a fusion of individual,

organizational and social goals to help evolve a unison of ideals and imbibe in his behaviour
a commitment to such fusion. In situation of conflicting goals, a concern for ethics should
govern the choices made.

6. Maxim of Responsiveness and Resilience: An administrator would respond effectively

to the demands and challenges from the external as well as internal environment of
which the administrative system is a part. He would adapt to environmental
transformations and yet sustain the ethical norms of conduct. In situations of deviation
from the prescribed ethical norms, the administrative system would show resilience and
bounce back into the accepted ethical mould at the earliest opportunity.

7. Maxim of Utilitarianism: While making and implementing policies and decisions, an

administrator will ensure that these lead to the greatest good (happiness, benefits) of the
greatest number.

8. Maxim of Compassion: An administrator without violating the prescribed laws and

rules, would demonstrate compassion for the poor, the disabled and the weak while
using his discretion in making decisions. At least he would not grant any benefits to the
stronger sections of society only because they are strong and would not deny the due
consideration to the weak, despite their weakness.

9. Maxim of National Interest: Though universalistic in orientation and liberal in outlook,a

civil servant, while performing his duties, would keep in view the impact of his action on
his nation’s strength and prestige. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans and the
Chinese citizens (including civil servants), while performing their official roles, have at
the back of their mind a concern and respect for their national interest. This automatically
raises the level of service rendered and the products delivered by the civil service.
10. Maxim of Justice: Those responsible for formulation and execution of policies and
decisions of governance, would ensure that respect is shown to the principles of equality,
equity, fairness, impartiality and objectivity and no special favours are doled out on the
criteria of status, position, power, class, caste or wealth.

4
11. Maxim of Transparency: An administrator will make decisions and implement them in
a transparent manner so that those affected by decisions and those who wish to evaluate
their rationale, will be able to understand the reasons behind such decisions and the
sources of information on which these decisions stand.

12. Maxim of Integrity: An administrator would undertake an administrative action on the

basis of honesty and not use his power, position and discretion to serve his personal
interest and the illegitimate interests of other individual or groups.

PUBLIC ETHICS: THE SARC PERSPECTIVE

The Fourth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on Ethics in
Government has dealt with it in a holistic and practical manner. The Commission has defined
Ethics as “a set of standards that society places on itself and which helpto guide behaviour,
choices and actions.” The Commission goes on to add that it “is painfully aware that standards
do not by themselves ensure ethical behaviour, that requires a culture of integrity. The crux of
ethical behaviour does not lie in bold words and expressions enshrined as standards, but in
their adoption in action, in sanctions against their violations, in putting in place competent
disciplinary bodies to investigate allegations of violations and impose sanctions quickly in
promoting a culture of integrity.”

Integrity, apart from financial integrity, also means intellectual integrity which does not
permit the chasm or dichotomy between words and action, between profession and practice.
All this, we believe, emphasise the role of individuals and citizens and institutions meant to
tackle these issues. It is unfortunate that many institutions, as provided under our Constitution,
to facilitate the working of democracy, have been either neglected or denigrated, and hence
have lost their vigour. They have to be enabled to regain their resilience and vitality to cope
with tasks entrusted to them creatively and without fear of favour. We can make reference to
the approach of the Commission in the context of the Indian experience so far. The Commission
lays down the ethical framework in politics, in public life, for ministers, legislators, for civil
servants, for regulators, and also for judiciary. The aim should be to strengthen the anti-
corruption laws and measures. There is need for ensuring confiscation of illegally acquired
wealth and prohibition of ‘benami transactions’, and protection of whistleblowers. All this
necessitates fresh legislation which depends on the will power of the political masters. The
immunity enjoyed by legislators ’should not be in respect of criminal acts. Serious economic
offences have received attention, besides the streamlining of many procedural matters. The
Commission’s chapter on social infrastructure is important, as it deals with citizens’ initiatives,
role of media, social audit and building of consensus. Then, the various aspects of systemic
reforms which comprise many aspects including reducing of discretion simplification,
accessibility, monitoring, audit, practical vigilance on corruption, intelligence gathering are
discussed. Recommendations about some specific sector have been made. The other chapters
of the report deal with protection of honest civil servants, need for international cooperation in
tackling corruption and the vexed problem of relationship between the political executive and
permanent civil service.

5
 The political and civil service relationship when it gets distorted can wreak havoc on
public interest. It is not possible within the compass of an article to comment in detail or
analyse the recommendations of the Commission. As regards some recommendations, there
can be a different viewpoint. Many facets will continue to be discussed and improved upon.
But substantial work has been accomplished by the Commission. It is for the government now
to initiate effective steps, by building consensus across the political spectrum or take a bold
plunge in the matter which does not brook any delay as the faith of the public is fast eroding,
and this is dangerous for democracy itself ?

While the strengthening of laws and institutions, political and electoral reforms, putting
in place fresh innovations and stress on honest and sincere enforcement of the rule of law are
important, it is the ethical ambience in society and moral fabric which are the ultimate
determinants. It is this which will provide the glue of cohesion to any society and moral legitimacy
to government of men which passing aberrations cannot shake. As Senator Paul H Douglas
said in his well-known lectures on ethical dimensions and considerations in governance in
Harvard University with reference to the US at that time: “Since the state is but the individual
writ large, perhaps the disclosures of the past years may reawaken within us a sense of our
individual failure to live up to standards we inwardly cherish. The faults we see in the government
are often the reflection of our moral failures. All this may dawn upon us, so that we will not
only reform government but also ourselves. If it does, the regenerative power of democracy and
of human spirit will have another great victory in the continual moral struggle which goes on
within each of us and within society.” This also rings true of contemporary India.

Institutions and laws are not self-operating. They depend on the individuals who operate
them. It is they who have to take a decision or make a choice. This discretion, this power to
take a decision, is a trust placed in public officials, political and elected, or appointed. They
may be faced with doubts and misgivings. Mahatma Gandhi gave a mantra or talisman for
decision-making in our day-to-day work. It is well-known but deserves repetition as it is equally
relevant in the trickiest of situations. Ethics does not remain ambivalent or amorphous but a
guiding star.

Gandhi said: I want to give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self
becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the
weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step contemplated is going to be
of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and
destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj for the hungry and starving millions? Then you will
find your doubts and yourself melting away.

Most scriptures emphasise the moral imperative: “Do unto others what you want to be
done to you.” Is it not a safe guide? The US President of Thomas Jefferson also provided a
guideline for men concerned with public affairs: “Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can
never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at
you, and act accordingly?” Another writer has added: “And if similar circumstances are there I
shall publicly say that I would do it again.”