A Normative Framework of

Ethical Decision – making

Master Program of Public Administration TSU –
Speyer
NINO KHATIASHVILI
3/9/2019
 Introduction
If one accepts Herbert Simon’s proposition that a science of administration is
fundamentally about decision-making and if one believes that all decisions have an ethical
dimension, then the study of administration necessarily involves an understanding of ethical
decision-making. Using a different tact, the well-being of organizations, their members and
society are affected by the ethical decisions made by those charged with leading and guiding
these organizations.

From this point of view, ethical decision-making process constitutes an issue of

significant importance for both public administration and business area. Generally, there are
several approaches towards ethical decision-making. One important approach is normative or
prescriptive, providing frameworks to guide and justify managerial decision-making. Yet,
decisions are a product of various factors, such as organizational climate or reward structures, in
other words, the products of a behavioral understanding of ethical decision-making.

In this piece of work I will discuss the normative framework of ethical decision-making,
philosophical approaches to it, theories which should not be overlooked in any overview of
ethical decision-making. The second part of the paper will be directed to ethical situations,
ethical dilemmas and the tools and means to resolve these dilemmas still from the perspective
from normative framework and generally standard principles leading the ethical decision-making
process.

Theories about Ethics

Virtue ethics

In reference to moral philosophy, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were those who
contributed most to the development of what is currently known as virtue theory.

The basic assumption of Socrates was that all men, if they could, would do what was
“good” and that the sole reason for not doing so was some form of ignorance. Therefore, he
believed that all people must have certain capabilities that reflect an excellent knowledge for
something. Therefore, Socrates perceived wisdom as being identical with the notion of virtue.
Plato, the most important of the Socrates’ determinant followers, tried to establish virtues that
would have concrete and absolute meaning, eternal in their duration and universally accepted. He
argued that the source of moral values was not based on empirical reality, but on a virtue reality
that could only be seen in our minds and souls. Plato believed that only a virtuous person could
be really happy because only a virtuous person had his/her soul in such a condition so as to be
happy. Justice, courage, moderation and wisdom were the central aspects of a virtuous person
according to Socrates and Plato.

Similarly, Aristotle believed that to lack virtues was to lack happiness which was the
absolute evil. However, Aristotle developed a completely different approach on ethics and
challenged the ideas of Plato and Socrates. Particularly, he argued that nothing is good in its own
right and everything is good in relation to something else. He also argued that wisdom or the
knowledge of something could be used both for good and for bad purposes; therefore, he was the
first who separated the notions of means and ends. For Aristotle, virtues could be reached only if
we choose the right means, and the choice of means was within our power.1

Deontological ethics

Deontological ethics relate to the concept that there are certain values or actions that are
inherently good or bad. Deontological or duty based ethics are primarily based around the
theories of Immanuel Kant, a German 18th century philosopher.2
Ethical action for Kant was an action derived from what humans perceive as their duty. He also
formulated a dual principle, the “categorical imperative”, which functioned as an indicator of
ethical human activity:

1. Always act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of others, as an
end and not as a means; and
2. Act only on that maxim that you can make a universal law.

Autonomy and freedom were two absolute values for Kant. He believed that since people were
rational beings, they had the ability to create universal laws and follow them. Furthermore,
1
Dimitra Giannou, The Meaning of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice: A Qualitative Study of
Greek Social Workers (2009), Pages 18 - 19
2
Amelie Vallotton Preisig and others, Ethical Dilemmas in the Information Society, Page 68
people were self-regulated by their own rules/laws because they were free to determine for
themselves without laws imposed by others. Thus, the two notions of autonomy and freedom
were identical in Kantian theory and interdependently connected.

In contrast with other theories on ethics, such as hedonism and utilitarianism, Kant
believed that the purpose of ethics was not to teach people to reach for their personal happiness.
On the contrary, ethical living for Kant was achieved at the cost of our urges and instincts.
However, he also suggested that people should be aware of their personal needs and wills. This
was because Kant believed that when humans were unhappy and had many unsatisfied needs,
then it was easier to be tempted to violate ethical laws. In this sense, personal happiness
indirectly became the ethical duty of humans.3

In the modern era the emphasis of a deontological or Kantian approach has been based
around the notion of individual rights. Therefore the rights each citizen should expect to be
afforded is what forms the main concern of rights-based philosophers. These are considered from
myriad standpoints, such as the right of the individual not to have their interests interfered with
by society or organizations, as well as the right to maximize one’s own happiness first and
foremost.4
Consequentalism or the utilitarian approach on ethics

The basis of the doctrine of consequentilism is that an action is determined as good or

bad accordingly to its consequences. However, this doctrine leaves open what can be counted as
a good or a bad consequence. Utilitarian theorists, based on this first principle, developed various
approaches explaining what should be perceived as good consequences. Classical utilitarians
believe that the ultimate good is something that most people actually desire, such as happiness or
pleasure.

In its simplest form, utilitarianism states that in any situation where there is a moral
choice, the right thing to do is that which is likely to produce the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people or the least harm to the world as a whole. Therefore, everyone ought

3
Dimitra Giannou, The Meaning of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice: A Qualitative Study of
Greek Social Workers (2009), Pages 22 - 23
4
Amelie Vallotton Preisig and others, Ethical Dilemmas in the Information Society, Pages 68 – 69
to obey the laws that ensure the balance between the good for the individual and for the society
as a whole.5

Consequentialism relates to the potential outcomes of an action and the ethical

ramifications of said action. What is important for the consequentialist is that the outcome is
satisfactory, not necessarily how that outcome has been achieved.6

Christianity and ethics

There are two main influences of Christian philosophy which are important in ethics.
First, Christianity gives greater importance to human will at the cost of human logic namely a
human being’s ability for rational thoughts. Human rationality, despite its critical power, is
powerless without God’s grace and without the person’s good will to be driven to the salvation
of his/her soul. The second critical influence of Christianity is the acceptance that the human
mind is incapable of solving on its own, the great problems of human ethical life. Therefore,
God’s authority is needed in order to guide humans to find solutions to difficult or unresolved
ethical problems in their lives. Christians believe that humans have the ability to do good deeds
and to make choices in their lives. Christians believe that humans have the ability to do good
deeds and to make choices of goodness. More importantly, humans are free to choose. Therefore,
they must have the will to produce good deeds. This is why human action has a genuine ethical
substance because the source is free will and activity. Thus, humans are responsible for their own
actions. An action is determined as good not by its outcome, even if it produces something good
in the long term. An action is good if the motive and and the intention of the actor is in
accordance with the good deed. If the actor’s motive is evil then the action is evil too.7

Feminist ethic of care

Feminist ethics hold specific assumptions about the nature of the good in human
interactions and therefore place the ethic of care at the heart of human activity. First, the ethic of
care lays emphasis on the interdependence and vulnerability of human existence rather than on

5
Dimitra Giannou, The Meaning of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice: A Qualitative Study of
Greek Social Workers (2009), Pages 23 - 24
6
Amelie Vallotton Preisig and others, Ethical Dilemmas in the Information Society, Page 68
7
Dimitra Giannou, The Meaning of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice: A Qualitative Study of
Greek Social Workers (2009), Pages 21 - 22
the autonomous and independent individuals and their rights. Second, it emphasizes the equal
moral worth of all persons and the uniqueness of each person. In particular, feminist ethics
promote the idea that ethics should not be based solely on theoretical principles rather than
reflecting on peoples’ lives. Moreover, all forms of oppression should be acknowledged as
historically and contextually specific circumstances that effect human activities. Third, caring is
a moral posture or disposition of human beings to behave with an active concern for the good of
others. In this respect, emotions, particularly empathy and compassion, are not obstacles for clear
and objective moral judgment, but rather the expression of responsibility for the other and their
needs.8

Ethical Dilemmas

What are ethical situations?

Ethical decisions are presumably made in “ethical situations” which have “ethical
dimensions.” But what is an ethical situation and what are the dimensions of situations that make
situations “ethical?” Researchers have generally not given sufficient attention to clarifying these
basic concepts, although typically there is at least some implicit assumption that it involves as to
what is “right or wrong”. Unfortunately such definitions are vague and in need of much further
clarification. Evaluating how to invest liquid assets may be a decision about what is “right or
wrong” economically, but not ethically.

Most contemporary accounts maintain that an ethical situation involves, as a necessary

condition, that decisions or contemplated behavior will have a significant impact on the welfare
of oneself and other humans, although some have extended that which should be considered to
include animals and even the physical environment.

Again, such a broad conception is insufficient to delimit ethical decision situations from
nonethical decisions. Indeed, all management decisions can be said to affect others and involve
choice. Some have argued that since all decisions fit this criteria, there are no morally neutral
acts. For example, an apparent nonethical decision to order pencils for the office will have some
consequences for others. Perhaps one employee mildly prefers the feel of a different brand of

8
Dimitra Giannou, The Meaning of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice: A Qualitative Study of
Greek Social Workers (2009), Page 24
pencils. However, this fact alone would not be sufficient to warrant calling this an ethical
decision. Every managerial choice will affect others in some way, but by itself this fact does not
make a situation ethical, since this would have the consequence of trivializing ethical
considerations and not distinguishing ethical decisions from any other decisions.

These criteria of 1) significant impact on the welfare of others and 2) choice do seem to
exclude some decision situations from being ethical. How one understands and defines
“significant” and “welfare of others” are critical and debatable. What also defines an ethical
situation are the particular norms, standards, or principles relevant in guiding decisions. Moral
standards and principles would include fairness, honesty, justice, human dignity, and integrity,
among others. Such values and principles, then, could be seen as constituting the ethical
dimensions of situations, and a situation could be thought of as ethical to the extent that these
values and principles are relevant and deserve consideration in a particular situation.9

The Essence of Ethical Dilemmas

An ethical dilemma is a situation of making a choice between two or more alternatives.
An agent is in unpleasant and difficult situation because he/she often needs to make a choice
between ethical and unethical alternatives, and when it comes to the ethical alternatives, he/she
should choose the best one. Selection reflects to a large number of principals, so this situation
causes conflicts between different levels of ethical dilemmas, but also the conflicts within the
same level. These conflicts can be solved by applying the hierarchy and priority rules which are
incorporated in the procedure and, in particular, in the strategy for solving the ethical dilemmas.
Individuals in everyday life, whether in personal or business, face with the necessity to
make decisions. They usually have more than one alternative available. Consequently, they face
with the dilemma which alternative to choose. The aim is to choose the best one, but the criterion
“the best” is different for different individuals, organizations and countries. Besides, the
alternatives are regularly in conflict, so the decision maker is in a dilemma which alternative to
choose. Basically, every dilemma contains an ethical dilemma, i.e. whether the decision is
good/bad, fair/unfair, moral/immoral. Judgments are made from the point of view of those who
make the decision (agents), from the point of view of those who require decision (principals) and

9
Terry L. Cooper, Handbook of Administrative Ethics (2000), Pages 482-483
from the point of view of the most people who do not participate in decision-making but are
affected by them (the common good or the general interest).
Ethics is the science of good/bad, just/unjust, moral/immoral behavior. As the “good” and
“right” are equated with moral, ethics is considered to be the science of studying morality where
morality is estimated from three key aspects in terms of the common good, personal interests and
the interest of the others. Common good means that the behavior of an individual is in the public
interest or in the interest of the most people. If the personal interest is excluded from the
interaction, than an individual becomes altruistic, because he/she takes into account only the
interests of others and his/her neglect. Altruism is unsustainable, and therefore ethical behavior
must involve respect for the interests of all the others, because only in this way the requirement
for general goodness can be met. The element other individuals also cannot be excluded, because
the individual then becomes an egoist, and egoism, in itself, expresses an unethical behavior.
Thus, the behavior of an individual or a group can be assessed as ethical if it is good for an
individual and for the most of the others (individuals and groups).10
The tough ethical dilemmas, it may be argued, involve decisions of a right - vs. - right nature.
These dilemmas are markedly different from choices of the right - vs. - wrong sort. For example,
if one option in a decision is identified as being “right” and another as being “wrong”, it is
probable most people will choose to do what is right. Right - vs. - right dilemmas, on the other
hand, involve situations where there is a clear backing for each option, but where the two are
mutually exclusive. There can be four types of right - vs. - right dilemmas:

 Truth vs. loyalty: personal honesty or integrity vs. responsibility and keeping one’s
promises
 Individual vs. community: the interests of the individual against those of the individual as
part of a larger entity, the community
 Short-term vs. long-term: the real and important concerns of the present pitted against
foresight and investment for the future
 Justice vs. mercy: fairness and equal application of the rules vs. empathy and
compassion.11

10
Nadica Figar, Biljana Dordevic, Managing an Ethical Dilemma (2016), Pages 345-346

11
Terry L. Cooper, Handbook of Administrative Ethics (2000), Pages 38-39
 Resolving right - vs. - right dilemmas

It is not enough simply to understand that right – vs. - right ethical dilemmas are difficult to
resolve or that they may be analyzed in an organized manner. A resolution process is critically
important. There can be three decision rules for thinking through any right - vs. - right dilemma.
They are ends-based, rule-based, and care-based. The three decision principles derive from the
major strands of moral philosophy that, in turn, derive from everyday experience.

Ends-based thinking

Ends-based thinking is concerned with the results of a decision. What will happen? This
utilitarian approach is commonly thought of as seeking “the greatest good for the greatest
number.” It seeks to distinguish right from wrong on the basis of consequences. The
administrative standard of “effectiveness” is a form of ends-based thinking. Effectiveness seeks
to maximize results and to distribute resources to various groups in direct proportion to their size
and ability to affect decisions.

Rule-based thinking

Rule-based thinking seeks to identify and apply the rule that if obeyed, would make the
world the kind of world we all would want to live in. It opposes ends-based thinking by denying
the possibility that the result or consequence of any decision can in fact be known – or even
properly estimated.

Care-based thinking

Care-based thinking derives from the concept of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you. By putting yourself in the other person’s position, you are
encouraged to take their perspective into account. John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” is another
example of the reversibility principle: Imagine that you have not yet been born into the world
and you do not know into what station you will be born; what is the decision that will be fairest
to you no matter where you end up in the world?

In applying the three decision rules to any dilemma, it is important not to become distracted
by a natural tendency to believe that if two rules suggest one decision and one rule suggests
another decision, then the vote is two-to-one and the highest right has been determined by
minority vote. Rather, each of the approaches may be seen as equally valid. So the individual
who is drawn more to rule-based thinking, for example, is no more or less moral than the
individual who prefers ends-based thinking. The value of this process is that it keeps all three
decisions frames in front of any particular decision maker.12

Conclusion

Finally, normative or prescriptive theories offer guidance as to what should be done and
what course of action is ethically right. An administrator searches for some principle to guide his
or her decision or reasons that will justify his or her decision. While adopting this perspective
might be seen as exhibiting a rationalist bias, this would seem to be the very nature of
administration and moral decision-making. This is especially true for the public administrator,
who must be prepared to defend decisions to policymakers and the general public.

Moral or ethical decision-making involves considered analysis of the situation and the
appropriate standards, norms and principles that apply to the situation. Principles or general rules
provide guidance and justification for actions. Perhaps more fundamentally, to make decisions
and act on the basis of principles is to bring coherence, consistency and predictability to one’s
life and role of administrator. Principled decision-making avoids arbitrariness, capriciousness
and unpredictability. While there may be disagreement as to the correct principle in a situation,
we do expect principled decision-making, in the sense of consistency, coherence and non-
arbitrariness. Because of this reason a deep understanding of normative framework with the
individual and environmental variables in ethical decision-making process is of a key importance
for any decision maker to give a reasonable and well-founded solution to the ethical problem
arisen in practice.

12
Terry L. Cooper, Handbook of Administrative Ethics (2000), Pages 41-44