Ethical Perspective on Administrative Responsibility -- On the Moral Responsibility of Public Administrators

Author: Liu Xuefeng
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-10-20
Features: It is widely acknowledged that public administrators bear positional responsibilities. However, there is no consensus on whether public administrators have moral responsibilities and what kind of moral responsibilities they should undertake. In the historical development of administration, the discussion on whether administrators have moral responsibilities has gone through three major stages, marked by the boundary of administrative and political dichotomy and its reflection. During the period of administrative and political dichotomy, administrators were considered value-neutral and merely "instrumental" parts of the administrative machine. However, the reality of administration forces people to reflect on the moral responsibilities of administrators. Why should public administrators have moral responsibilities? Public administrators are not only subjects of value choices but also face a sharp contradiction between "publicness" and "privateness." Moral responsibility is not a type of responsibility but a moral judgment on responsibility. It is crucial to determine which responsibilities can become moral responsibilities and how to divide them, as this lays a vital foundation for promoting the realization of moral responsibilities among public administrators. When distinguishing between subjective and objective moral responsibilities, predecessors faced dilemmas. The lessons from the past lead us to shift to distinguishing public administrators' moral responsibilities between obligatory and idealistic moral responsibilities. This approach ensures the fulfillment of basic moral responsibilities while also promoting their continuous development. The realization of moral responsibilities among public administrators is the materialization of moral responsibilities. In this process, public administrators are filled with confusion regarding the roles, objects, bases, and orientations of moral responsibility realization, as well as objective technical barriers such as the pluralistic structure of power sources, the counter-function of bureaucracy in power arrangements, and the flexibility of power exercise. These may lead to ethical compromises among public administrators. How can the moral responsibilities of public administrators be realized? First, we must consider the guiding principles for the realization of their moral responsibilities. The monistic principle of the Categorical Imperative is replaced by a pluralistic principle because public administrators in modern society fulfill at least three roles: 1. Public administrators who are separated from their citizen roles; 2. Members within the public administration system; 3. Arbitrators resolving conflicts of public interests. Correspondingly, public administrators should adhere to three guiding principles in the administrative process: "People-centered," "Democratic Centralism," and "Fairness." The specific measures for realizing the moral responsibilities of public administrators mainly include external and internal controls. External control assumes human malevolence and employs methods such as ethical legislation, establishing rules and regulations, power supervision, building a cultural environment, rewarding, and protecting. Internal control assumes human goodness and utilizes methods such as cultivating administrative capabilities, strengthening psychological qualities and values, nurturing moral sentiments, and refining moral character. Both external and internal controls have their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the preference of ethicists for one method does not exclude the other or completely discard it. However, if one chooses between the two solely based on the objective aspects of the realization of moral responsibilities among public administrators, conflicts are inevitable. Thus, seeking a combination of the two methods based on the moral development level of public administrators becomes a consideration. When analyzing the four stages of moral development among public administrators, we can achieve an organic integration of these two methods. Why should we consider the moral responsibilities of public administrators from the perspective of legitimacy? This is because a reasonable answer to the issue of legitimacy is the foundation for the smooth development of public administration. In contemporary China, where legitimacy crises still exist, this holds significant implications for realizing the moral responsibilities of public administrators. While facing challenges and pressures, factors such as the inherent goodness of human nature, the practical foundation of public administration that paves the way for goodness, the value bias and flexibility of administrative systems, and the driving force of democracy provide the possibility to respond to these challenges.