Ethical Neutrality is following the rules, codes and laws of the organization. In practice, the principle of ethical neutrality has substantial disadvantages. First, no matter how much detail there is in the law, the administrative code and policy directives provide, I usually face numerous choices and wide discretion in carrying out my responsibilities on a daily basis. Second, there are no readily available mechanisms for me to voice my concerns or raise ethical questions regarding the organization's procedures or processes. Therefore, the I had only four rather unattractive options--obey, resign, go public, or go underground and undermine the unethical practice from within. (Hirschman:1970) The Ethics Board failed as an option because two of the three members ended up with conflicts; behind the scenes efforts failed and Council review was the the only option left.
There was little choice left, my potential acts of omission would be no different than his acts of commission when assessed from an ethical perspective. Actions and results must count for more in the public arena than motive or intent (which are quite difficult to measure). And, public officials must exercise foresight regarding the outcomes of their actions. (Thompson, 1990; p. 263)
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish no reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations."
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956)
No comments:
Post a Comment