Dubnick, Melvin J. And Jonathan B. Justice, “Accountability and the Evil of Administrative Ethics,” ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY 38 (2) May 2006:236-267.
Abstract:
Scholars of administrative ethics have recently been attentive to the problem of so-called administrative evil. The authors argue that evil can be understood as a socially constructed category of agents and acts specific to particular circumstances and moral communities, and the authors apply a framework of accountability to reflect the dynamics of that constructed reality. Selected examples of efforts to hold evil actors accountable or otherwise to account for evil acts illustrate a paradox: Responses to so-called evil may themselves be labeled evil in hindsight or by members of other contemporaneous communities. In light of this paradox and attendant ethical dilemmas, the authors argue that conventional ethical and behavioral prescriptions are necessary but insufficient protections against catastrophic mis-, mal-, or nonfeasance in and by organizations.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document explores the role of evil in administrative ethics, focusing on accountability, moral responsibility, and the social construction of evil within organizational and societal contexts.
Concept of Evil as a Social Construct
- Evil is viewed as a socially constructed category linked to specific circumstances and moral communities.
- It functions to rationalize and transform morally inexplicable events, serving social purposes.
Types of Ethical Problems of Evil
- Four conditions (A-D) describe different scenarios involving acts and actors, from transgressions to outright evil acts.
- The most severe, Condition D, involves acts and actors that are inherently evil, like the Holocaust, challenging moral understanding.
Theoretical Foundations of Evil and Morality
- The problem of evil questions how to maintain a beneficent, omnipotent God amid evil, leading to theodicy.
- Modern philosophy and ethics see evil as an unfathomable event or act beyond moral judgment, often as a mythic or social construct.
Distinction Between Transgressions and Evil Acts
- Transgressions are punishable and forgivable, while evil acts are morally unfathomable and often beyond account.
- Evil acts are seen as absolute wrongs that challenge moral comprehension and accountability.
Hannah Arendt’s Banality of Evil
- Evil is often committed by ordinary people who refuse to think for themselves.
- Eichmann exemplified this, acting as a banal functionary rather than a malevolent villain.
Transforming Evil Through Accountability
- Efforts aim to reframe evil acts and actors into accountable, understandable forms.
- This process involves shifting conditions B-D into Condition A, where acts are judged as transgressions.
Strawsonian Moral Community and Responsibility
- Moral responsibility is rooted in everyday social reactions within a community.
- Accountability is based on reactive attitudes like resentment or gratitude, which regulate behavior.
Ethical Challenges in Addressing Evil
- The main challenge is how to deal with actors outside the moral community or involved in Condition B-D scenarios.
- Efforts focus on reconfiguring evil acts into accountable transgressions, despite costs and complexities.
Four Forms of Accountability
- Answerability and blameworthiness focus on actors, emphasizing moral and organizational obligations.
- Liability and attribution relate to acts, involving legal sanctions and assigning responsibility based on behavior or stereotypes.
Answerability and Blameworthiness
- Answerability involves ex post reporting and ex ante prevention within hierarchical or contractual relationships.
- Blameworthiness assesses moral disapproval based on role expectations, emphasizing moral responsibility and ethical norms.
Liability and Legal Accountability
- Liability places acts within a juridical framework, enabling sanctions through laws, codes, and international tribunals.
- Legal mechanisms can both ex post and ex ante address evil acts but have limits in preventing behavior or creating ethical individuals.
Attributing Responsibility to Actors
- Stereotypes and profiling, including moral panics and criminal profiling, are used to identify and control potential evil actors.
- Historical witch hunts and modern moral panics demonstrate how attribution humanizes or demonizes groups, influencing social and legal responses.
Creating New Evils Through Responses
- Efforts to eliminate evil often generate unintended consequences, such as collateral damage, witch hunts, or moral panics.
- Responses to past evils, like sanctions or military actions, can produce new forms of suffering and moral dilemmas.
Transforming Evil Through Ethical Understanding
- Modern ethics seeks to reframe evil actors and acts as moral transgressions, but mechanisms are imperfect.
- The paradox exists that efforts to understand and control evil can inadvertently create new forms of evil or moral harm.
Paradoxes of Ethical Governance
- International sanctions, military interventions, and security measures often produce collateral damage and new moral issues.
- The treatment of detainees and responses to terrorism exemplify how measures intended to combat evil can erode moral standards and create new crises.
Limitations of Preemptive and Surveillance Models
- Preemption and panopticon approaches rely on changing values or increased surveillance but risk fostering conformity and inefficiency.
- These strategies can generate new evils by suppressing dissent and overextending control, often failing to prevent moral failures.
Advocacy for Liberalism and Ethical Reflection
- Emphasizes procedural protections and moral reflection over strict conformity to fixed standards.
- Encourages balancing reliability with the capacity for moral judgment, recognizing that no single solution can eliminate evil entirely.
The Paradox of Moral Certainty
- Efforts to impose universal standards or eliminate moral ambiguity can produce unintended harms.
- Historical and contemporary examples show that responses to evil often create new moral dilemmas and suffering.