Good Essay On Ethics

Cooper, Gawthrop and McKnight in their own right discuss issues affecting public service within the modern societal context. Indeed, one appreciates the illumination the works give to an audience keen on understanding the dynamics of public service. In this paper, the brief shall be to canvass some of the issues that are brought forth in the respective works. From the onset, it is imperative to appreciate the ethical context within which the works are premised. The main objective of the writers is to create an ideological context that informs the modern public service.
The discussion on public service responsibility must not go unmentioned. Indeed, the propositions by Cooper are as illuminating as they are controversial. However, within the deep sited controversy, one appreciates the truth in the dual concept of responsibility. These are the objective responsibility and the subjective responsibility. Ironically, while it would be expected that the former being external gains more following, in many cases it is the latter that often determines the trajectory of the modern administrator. This is perhaps because our internal psyche has an effect on our behavior. For that reason, it is essential for public administrators to have the interests of the citizenry enshrined and internalized in their values, attitudes and personal beliefs. This approach should equally assume a majoritarian context where the interest of the majority prevails in a typical utilitarian context
It is, however, critical to appreciate how difficult it is to practice utilitarianism in cases where one’s interests fall with the minority. It is this that has gotten the new fashion of the two publics. That is the first public which entails one’s interests and the second that entails the interests of the citizenry. In matters of interests, humans tend to address their own problems before looking the other way for what affects the others. Indeed, Cooper in appreciating this dilemma calls for public responsibility. He observes that responsibility remains the pinnacle of ultimate success in administration. However, the big question that arises is who are the public administrators responsible to? Indeed, this question is as enormous as it is confusing. This is because while responsibility remains a relatively clear and simple concept, it may be subjected to various meaning in the end making one responsible from one spectrum and irresponsible from the others. However, of the three representations that Cooper observes, this paper prefers responsibility to the citizenry over the political leaders and the administrative superiors. It is the humble submission of this paper that a demonstrated responsibility to the citizenry would be all encompassing and thus effective. In addition, the citizenry are the largest group and thus this approach blends well with the utilitarian approach.
On the other hand, McKnight strikes an illuminating view of the counterproductive nature of public initiatives. This paper agrees with his submission on the demise of the community of mourners with the arrival of the professional counselor. In the end, the counselor gets ineffective due to the aftermath of the withdrawal of the community. A striking comparison is made of the current situation of Medicaid. One needs to relate Cooper’s argument of public responsibility to the case of Medicaid to be able to gain an understanding of the dilemma in public administration. However, in brief one may argue that public administration when compounded with competing interests and challenges, it remains ethical to pursue a utilitarian approach that benefits the citizenry over the selfish interests of the minorities.