Free Ethics Essay Sample

Cooper in, Safeguarding Ethical Autonomy in Organizations: Dealing with Unethical Superiors and Organizations and Gawthrop in, Democracy, Bureaucracy and the Common Good, bring out critical issues that face administrators in the day to day dispensation in the public service. The common thread across the works is the need to conduct oneself for the overall good of the people. In fact, Cooper captures this succinctly in his recognition and appreciation of the fact that public administrators have a Constitutional and statutory obligation to protect the interests of the citizenry. In that context, according to Cooper’s narrative, it is instructive for the public administrator to clearly demarcate the limits of responsibilities to his superiors and the organization. In the event the Constitutional and statutory obligation to defend the citizenry and protect the latter’s interests is threatened by the superiors and or the organization, the administrator may as well override the former and uphold his Constitutional obligations.
I find this approach intriguing and essential the best for the modern public administrator. It must be noted, and it so noted by Gawthrop, that the law should be faithfully executed. On the surface, it is assumed that public officers regardless of their rank in the service would play their role with due respect for the law. Consequently, it is anticipated that everyone practices fidelity to the law without necessarily being monitored. However, as both Gawthrop and Cooper observe, this may not be the case. The public service is often pervaded by sectarian interests that may be in conflict with the citizenry’s interests. It is shortcoming that the two authors attempt to discuss. They offer solutions that ought to be pursued in the overall solution of the conundrum.
While Gawthrop identifies an application of business efficiency in the management of public affairs as the approach to go, Cooper recommends for the public administrator to remain faithful to the Constitutional and statutory obligations. It is on that premise that while the former discusses the public bureaucracy as first propounded by Woodrow Wilson, the latter recommends for the application of whistleblowing.
Personally, I find both of their contributions useful towards the solution of the aforementioned conundrum. It is imperative for the public administrator to appreciate the fact that whistleblowing is not tantamount to disloyalty. Far from it, whistleblowing is in essence an act of loyalty. It is an act that seeks to remind the custodians of public resources to whom they owe their allegiance and the need to observe the legal obligations as anchored in the Constitution and statutes. In addition, whistleblowing, if timely enough, may save the public coffers millions that would have been lost in the misappropriation of resources. It is consequently a welcome idea and one need not overemphasize of the consequences of the same. Cooper argues, albeit lamely, that whistleblowing may occasion loneliness and rejection in the organization. However, one ought to look at the same from a broader picture. One need to appreciate the fact that whistleblowing serves to protect the rights of the citizenry. It should not be lost on us that service to the citizenry remains the highest obligation for public servants. On the other hand, introduction of efficiency as propounded by Gawthrop is equally a welcome idea. This is essentially because the same enables the protection of the citizenry and saves the public millions if not billions. This is the long run attains the Constitutional and statutory obligations asserted by Cooper.