Dubnick, Melvin J. and Jonathan B. Justice, “The Evil of Administrative Ethics.” Originally presented at Ethics Forum, March 26-27, 2004, Portland OR; revised for presentation at QUB Institute of Governance Seminar, May 20, 2004; University of Haifa School of Political Sciences, Seminar Series, June 10, 2004.
Abstract:
One recent development in the literature concerned with administrative ethics has been an explicit concern with defining and then preventing or redressing a variety of forms of so-called administrative evil. Definitions of evil encompass a range of behaviors and consequences ranging from the genuinely horrific to the merely unpleasant. This essay locates the concern with administrative evil within the context of post-Enlightenment Western philosophers’ efforts to come to grips with ethically or metaphysically incomprehensible wrongs. In this context, “evil” can be understood as a social constructed category of agents and acts which is specific to particular moral communities and so subject to redefinition over time or in different contexts. The examination of several historical examples of efforts to hold “evil” actors accountable or otherwise to account for “evil” acts illustrates a paradox – that responses to so-called evil can themselves be labeled evil in hindsight or even when seen through different contemporary eyes. This leads to the identification of a key dilemma of administrative ethics, the possibility that ostensibly ethical conduct will later be condemned. Alternative responses to this dilemma involve different tradeoffs among administrative efficiency, effectiveness, and the avoidance of “evil.” The most commonly proffered diagnoses and ameliorative prescriptions tend to reflect the scholarly tradition of normative ethics (aimed at the preemption of evil) and the practical tradition of policing and prosecution of administrative behavior (the “panopticon”), either singly or in combination. Based on our own analysis, however, we suggest that these are necessary but insufficient protections against catastrophic mal-, mis-, or non-feasance in and by organizations.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document explores the ethical, philosophical, and practical challenges of understanding, responding to, and managing evil within administrative and broader moral contexts.
The Concept and Challenges of Evil in Ethics
- Evil is viewed as absolute wrongdoing beyond moral comprehension, often linked to acts that “ought not to have happened.”
- It is social constructs used to define threats to social and moral order, not objective realities, and can be historical or mythic.
Types of Ethical Settings for Evil Acts
- Conditions A to D describe different contexts of evil, from transgressions (A) to the Holocaust-like wickedness (D).
- Efforts to transform evil into transgressions (Condition A) aim to make acts and actors morally accountable, but risks generating new evils.
The Ethical Problem of Evil in Administrative Life
- Administrative ethics seeks normative control through accountability to prevent inappropriate behavior.
- Responses to evil often involve reconfiguring evil acts/actors into morally accountable forms, risking the creation of paradoxical or new evils.
Hannah Arendt’s Banal and Bounded Evil
- Arendt distinguished between transgressions and “the banality of evil,” emphasizing thoughtlessness in ordinary functionaries like Eichmann.
- Evil actors are often “nobodies” who refuse moral reflection, making their evil acts difficult to judge within traditional categories.
The Problem of Evil in Legal and Political Contexts
- Condition C involves prosecuting evil as crimes, risking reduction of evil to mere transgressions and losing sight of actor’s character.
- The Nuremberg Trials exemplify efforts to hold individuals responsible, emphasizing personal accountability over state obedience.
Theoretical and Practical Responses to Evil
- Ethical responses aim to reframe evil acts/actors into conditions where they can be judged as transgressions.
- These efforts can paradoxically foster new evils by oversimplifying or mischaracterizing complex moral realities.
The Paradox of Ethical Responses to Evil
- Attempts to eliminate evil by transforming it into transgressions may lead to unanticipated evil consequences.
- Balancing sanctions and moral reasoning is essential to prevent banal or modern forms of evil while maintaining accountability.
Strawsonian Concept of Moral Responsibility
- Strawson emphasizes the social nature of moral responsibility rooted in everyday interpersonal reactions.
- Responsible behavior is judged through “reactive attitudes” like gratitude, resentment, shame, and guilt, which influence future conduct.
Moral Community and Exceptions
- The moral community is informal, based on shared standards and expectations guiding daily interactions.
- Exceptions include acts outside an agent’s control or by individuals lacking capacity for responsible action, such as children or the insane.
Accountability Systems for Addressing Evil
- Four approaches—answerability, liability, blameworthiness, and attribution—are used to transform evil acts into moral or organizational issues.
- Each approach prioritizes either the act or the actor, with answerability and blameworthiness focusing on individuals, and liability and attribution on acts.
Answerability and Organizational Hierarchies
- Answerability involves post-event reporting within hierarchical or principal-agent relationships.
- Ex-ante answerability aims to prevent evil acts through organizational norms and monitoring, especially in high-reliability organizations.
Legal Liability and Juridicization
- Liability involves formal legal sanctions, making acts subject to laws, rules, and enforcement.
- This juridicization expands legal accountability, but laws alone cannot prevent evil acts like genocide or atrocities.
Blameworthiness and Role Expectations
- Blameworthiness assesses moral disapproval based on role expectations, even if formal obligations are not violated.
- Role expectations influence behavior, and failure to meet them can lead to moral condemnation, as seen in Arendt’s analysis of Eichmann.
Attribution and Historical Scapegoating
- Responsibility attribution uses stereotypes or generalizations, exemplified by witch hunts and moral panics.
- Modern profiling and moral panic responses target perceived threats, often leading to unjust blame and social consequences.
Creating New Evils Through Accountability
- Efforts to confront evil, such as sanctions or military actions, can produce collateral damage and unintended harms.
- Human choices driven by moral certainty often generate new forms of evil, complicating ethical responses.
Limits and Paradoxes of Administrative Ethics
- Ethical mechanisms are imperfect; they cannot fully prevent natural or moral evils like disasters or genocides.
- Excessive focus on conformity and surveillance can create new evils, undermining genuine moral reflection and accountability.
Moral Reflection and Resistance
- Moral sentiments like shame and guilt are powerful for accountability, as shown in examples from Denmark and Bulgaria.
- Resistance to evil often depends on individuals’ capacity for moral reflection within their social roles.
Paradox of Confronting Evil
- Efforts to eliminate evil through laws and sanctions are limited; they may inadvertently cause new harms.
- Human choices motivated by moral certainty can lead to unintended consequences, perpetuating the cycle of evil.
Ethical Dilemmas and Administrative Challenges
- Complex moral dilemmas in public administration require balancing reliability with moral reflection.
- Overemphasis on conformity can inhibit moral judgment, risking systemic wrongdoing and new forms of evil.
Author’s Note:
Published as ” Accountability and the Evil of Administrative Ethics ,” with Jonathan B. Justice. ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY 38 (2) May, 2006:236-267.