You are here
Government Ethics and the Clash Between Rules-Based and Ends-Based Ethical Approaches
Thursday, September 25th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
The most serious obstacle to the acceptance of conflict of interest
programs in government is the clash between government ethics' use of a
rules-based (deontological) ethical approach, and government officials'
use of an ends-based (teleological) ethical approach.
It's not that these two approaches necessarily require different values or decisions, it's that they don't speak the same language, and they judge each other by different standards. In addition, the ends-based approach is easily distorted to make ethical reasoning a worthless bother compared with all the technological, economic, social, and strategic reasoning going on.
In government, doing a good job means getting the best result for the most number of citizens. How you get there matters far less than the result. The process and the rules are things to be taken advantage of, to use, even abuse, in order to get the most for your constituents or to get the result you want (for example, more power or great consulting opportunities when your political career is over). The ends don't simply justify the means, they often determine them.
This is how government officials are judged. A council member who uses her power, and skillfully manipulates the rules, to get a grant for her neighborhood is considered effective, by both peers and constituents, even if the contract goes to her sister's firm. A council member who does not use his power or skillfully manipulate the rules, so that the grant goes to another neighborhood, is considered ineffective (and his brother won't be happy about it, either).
Government ethics is all about rules and means and process, doing the right thing, putting the public interest ahead of one's own private interests. The result doesn't matter. The means is the end.
But government ethics is judged, and it has to be promoted, on the basis of the ends it accomplishes. And those are not nearly as clear as the basic values that are espoused. Yes, when private interests come first, taxpayers usually pay more or get less for their money. But how much? And how hard it is to prove!
Yes, citizens will not feel that their interests are important in a government where business associates get the contracts, relatives get the jobs, and information is hard to find. They will participate less, have less trust in government, and give government officials low ratings in the polls. But they'll still vote for incumbents, still pay their taxes, and the fewer people who attend meetings, the easier it is to govern.
When businesses with interests that government can further are allowed to give politicians large gifts and campaign contributions, their ends will more likely take precedence over those without the interests and the money to promote them. But these businesses have on their side so many resources that anyone with an ends-based ethical approach will see that they will get around any rule the government ethics world can get passed. For people with ends-based ethics, this sort of rules-based ethics is a game played with unequal resources and information. It's unwinnable (its end is impossible), and therefore not worth the bother.
What it really comes down to is not the type of ethical approach, but the way the approach is used. Those with honest ends-based ethical reasoning truly do what they feel is best for their constituents, what they were elected to do, not what is best for themselves or their friends or campaign contributors. They will steer clear of conflicts of interest, and will recuse themselves whenever there is even an appearance of impropriety, because they understand and respect the end of earning the public's trust.
I dealt more concretely with the clash between these two forms of ethical reasoning in a blog entry on the commercial bond system that can be found in many part of the U.S., but hardly anywhere else.
How do we get these two ethical approaches talking to each other? First, it is important to understand that the two approaches usually come to the same conclusion when the underlying values are the same. When the end is considered in terms of constituents, it's hard to argue in favor of an end that benefits family members, friends, business associates, lobbyists, or campaign contributors to the detriment of others. It's especially in setting priorities, balancing who is benefited and how important that benefit is to the community, that values take form.
But it is those with power who set a community's priorities. It is hard to be involved with setting priorities unless you do what it takes to get that power. And once you've made the necessary compromises, once you've set power as an important end, it is hard to stop thinking strategically and instead to focus on ends that benefit the community.
John McCain is a perfect example of the clash between these ethical approaches. His career was nearly ended by a conflict of interest scandal. He survived and devoted himself to changing federal conflict of interest rules, with a focus on campaign finance laws and the use of soft money (that is, large contributions not given directly to a candidate, but spent in support of the candidate). Party leaders shunned him for this, manifesting a stark contrast of values.
But once he needed party support to allow him to accept public financing, which the party would greatly supplement, McCain switched from a rules-based ethics to an ends-based ethics, surrounding himself with lobbyists and raising enormous amounts of soft money for the national and state party committees to support his candidacy, adapting some of his policy positions to the party platform. Sadly, this change calls into question how rules-based his approach was in the first place.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
It's not that these two approaches necessarily require different values or decisions, it's that they don't speak the same language, and they judge each other by different standards. In addition, the ends-based approach is easily distorted to make ethical reasoning a worthless bother compared with all the technological, economic, social, and strategic reasoning going on.
In government, doing a good job means getting the best result for the most number of citizens. How you get there matters far less than the result. The process and the rules are things to be taken advantage of, to use, even abuse, in order to get the most for your constituents or to get the result you want (for example, more power or great consulting opportunities when your political career is over). The ends don't simply justify the means, they often determine them.
This is how government officials are judged. A council member who uses her power, and skillfully manipulates the rules, to get a grant for her neighborhood is considered effective, by both peers and constituents, even if the contract goes to her sister's firm. A council member who does not use his power or skillfully manipulate the rules, so that the grant goes to another neighborhood, is considered ineffective (and his brother won't be happy about it, either).
Government ethics is all about rules and means and process, doing the right thing, putting the public interest ahead of one's own private interests. The result doesn't matter. The means is the end.
But government ethics is judged, and it has to be promoted, on the basis of the ends it accomplishes. And those are not nearly as clear as the basic values that are espoused. Yes, when private interests come first, taxpayers usually pay more or get less for their money. But how much? And how hard it is to prove!
Yes, citizens will not feel that their interests are important in a government where business associates get the contracts, relatives get the jobs, and information is hard to find. They will participate less, have less trust in government, and give government officials low ratings in the polls. But they'll still vote for incumbents, still pay their taxes, and the fewer people who attend meetings, the easier it is to govern.
When businesses with interests that government can further are allowed to give politicians large gifts and campaign contributions, their ends will more likely take precedence over those without the interests and the money to promote them. But these businesses have on their side so many resources that anyone with an ends-based ethical approach will see that they will get around any rule the government ethics world can get passed. For people with ends-based ethics, this sort of rules-based ethics is a game played with unequal resources and information. It's unwinnable (its end is impossible), and therefore not worth the bother.
What it really comes down to is not the type of ethical approach, but the way the approach is used. Those with honest ends-based ethical reasoning truly do what they feel is best for their constituents, what they were elected to do, not what is best for themselves or their friends or campaign contributors. They will steer clear of conflicts of interest, and will recuse themselves whenever there is even an appearance of impropriety, because they understand and respect the end of earning the public's trust.
I dealt more concretely with the clash between these two forms of ethical reasoning in a blog entry on the commercial bond system that can be found in many part of the U.S., but hardly anywhere else.
How do we get these two ethical approaches talking to each other? First, it is important to understand that the two approaches usually come to the same conclusion when the underlying values are the same. When the end is considered in terms of constituents, it's hard to argue in favor of an end that benefits family members, friends, business associates, lobbyists, or campaign contributors to the detriment of others. It's especially in setting priorities, balancing who is benefited and how important that benefit is to the community, that values take form.
But it is those with power who set a community's priorities. It is hard to be involved with setting priorities unless you do what it takes to get that power. And once you've made the necessary compromises, once you've set power as an important end, it is hard to stop thinking strategically and instead to focus on ends that benefit the community.
John McCain is a perfect example of the clash between these ethical approaches. His career was nearly ended by a conflict of interest scandal. He survived and devoted himself to changing federal conflict of interest rules, with a focus on campaign finance laws and the use of soft money (that is, large contributions not given directly to a candidate, but spent in support of the candidate). Party leaders shunned him for this, manifesting a stark contrast of values.
But once he needed party support to allow him to accept public financing, which the party would greatly supplement, McCain switched from a rules-based ethics to an ends-based ethics, surrounding himself with lobbyists and raising enormous amounts of soft money for the national and state party committees to support his candidacy, adapting some of his policy positions to the party platform. Sadly, this change calls into question how rules-based his approach was in the first place.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
