Objective responsibility has to do with expectations imposed outside of ourselves, whereas subjective responsibility concerns those things for which we feel a responsibility. Objective responsibility arises from legal, organizational, and societal demands on our role as public administrator, but subjective responsibility is rooted in our own beliefs about loyalty, conscience, and identification.Subjective responsibility in carrying out our administrative role reflects the kind of professional ethic developed through personal experience. We believe in being legal, and so we are compelled by our conscience to act in a particular way, not because we are required to do so by a supervisor or the law but because of an inner drive composed of beliefs, values, and …show more content…
However, that is such an abstract and elusive notion that it may not serve even the purpose of expanding the perspective of the decision maker, unless there is a strong sense of subjective responsibility. Sometimes subjective responsibility reinforces a person’s objective responsibilities, sometimes not. Sometimes it moves the public-interest obligation to the forefront, other times it obscures it altogether.
From the film, Law and Disorder we come across very loss statements which people took objectively and did the wrong things. FRONTLINE reported that in one instance an NOPD captain told a group of officers: "We have authority by martial law to shoot looters."The order suggests a line was drawn from New Orleans' top officials to officers in the field. Could stealing food, water or a TV now mean a death sentence?Such a command, taken on its own, violates the intent of rules governing how and when police officers can use their guns. Statement from the Mayor at the time was: 'Let's stop search and rescue and bring our forces back to controlling the streets. Let's stop the looting, let's stop the lawlessness, and let's put our police officers on the streets, so that our citizens are
Kenneth Ashworth, a public servant, has served Texas and its fine education for more than thirty years and knows all the ins and outs of how the government works. He has written his book to benefit his niece, who has decided to follow in his footsteps, of all of his dealings from problematic politicians to many life lessons that have shaped him. Intended for his niece, this book has opened the minds for not only me and my peers, but for students around the state. After reading Caught between the Dog and the Fireplug, or How to Survive Public Service, Kenneth Ashworth makes a truthful point of knowing what the differences of personal responsibility and social responsibility is as a bureaucrat. Ashworth shows that social and personal responsibility can be two of the same if the morals of the person acting upon them are in good conscious.
In conclusion, police corruption was and still is a major problem in the united states. Police are placed into society to serve and protect, but the New Orleans Police Department was infested with corruption from murder to drugs. Len Davis was the first police officer in history to ever receive to death penalty because of his unspeakable crimes that he had committed. Unfortunately, Kim Groves life was taken because she filed a complaint on Len Davis. The individuals that had really suffered were her children and family. Len Davis had no morals or value for life nor did he have any remorse for this unspeakable crime that he had committed. There should be mandatory laws put in place to recruit police officers, more psychological testing and major background checks so this won’t ever happen to no one
• Accountability: We don’t say, “It’s not my fault” or “It’s not my job.” We take responsibility for meeting our commitments – our personal ones as well as those of the entire organization. We take ownership of the
In the field of Public Administration there is a highly-defined structure of constitutional, legal, and procedural requirements that are in place to keep those in power in check. That being said, no matter how stringent the oversight, or how well-meaning the intentions of those who serve, Public Service is a complicated field with many landmines to navigate. As the Iran-Contra Affair illustrates, duties, orders, and responsibilities and can easily conflict with each other because there are so many areas of
In his article, Unger argues for a principle called Pretty Demanding Dictate which claims that we ought to spend most of our income in order to alleviate the suffering around the world. In support of this principle, Unger comes up with two cases: Bob’s Bugatti case and Ray’s Big Request case. To briefly discuss how Unger’s argument is structured, Unger proposes that if we agree that Bob should ruin his expensive Bugatti in order to save a child, we are inclined to believe that Ray should donate most of his money to UNICEF because he can do more good with lesser cost than Bob’s case. Here, Unger also proposes the Reasonable Principle of Ethical Integrity, which argues that if you believe someone should perform a certain act of benevolence, then you should be able to carry out the same act under the same circumstance as well. This principle is used to persuade us if we believe Bob or Ray should perform an act of benevolence in their situation, we should also do so under the same circumstance. At the end of this reasoning, we are led to believe that we should sacrifice most of our money just as we believe Bob and Ray should do.
The night following Brown’s shooting, police dressed in riot gear came to break up an unruly crowd following a prayer vigil held in Brown’s memory. The following day, officers had to resort to using tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a massive crowd at a local convenience store that had been burned down and looted earlier. On August 13, the local government instated a mandatory curfew due to the reoccurring violence from the preceding days. I don’t believe the protesters are justified in looting the stores in the area, however I do believe they are justified in protesting the local government on not providing justice for the situation. Whether Michael Brown fought the officer or not, he still had his hands up when Wilson’s gun was drawn. When someone’s hands are up in the air that usually means they are surrendering themselves from the situation. The autopsy shows that with the way the bullets hit his body, he was more than likely in a hands up position. This is the second time fatal violence against and unarmed black teenager has occurred, the first being Trayvon Martin. With the way that case turned out, it’s safe to infer that Wilson will face no justice for shooting Brown. Our government claims to “protect” us under law, however it fails to do its job. We aren’t honoring Michael through the violence and looting, but we are through the peaceful protests in order to gain justice for his
Responsibility, must be put down though we ought to change the definition notions. We want to be held responsible by society.
In this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy.
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
... which the act is done does matter to them. Utilitarianism is very vulnerable in this regard. A case where some people’s happiness is created at the cost of a few may not always be ethical. Opposition may say that “Someone always is left out in this theory” but I argue that this is always the case.
We have our own moral codes but our decisions are solely based on the impact of our perspective on the people’s welfare and happiness. Although it is in our perspective as utilitarian to decide what actions to make, the theory of utilitarianism has strengths and weaknesses.
As a consequence, the ethical dimension of a decision is not necessarily visible to the decision maker. A person can behave unethically and not even realize that they are behaving that way. They could be thinking that they are doing things appropriately. It is only later that they realize the unethical dimension of their decision. This is what the authors describe as ethical blindness. Under certain circumstances the ethical aspect of a decision fades away so that the decision maker gradually becomes unaware of it (Palazzo, Krings, & Hoffrage,
As a business person, should be responsible for himself by practicing compelling administration aptitudes. The one should know the procedure with a specific end goal to effectively execute the procedure. It's less demanding to maintain a strategic distance from errors when you know how to evaluate esteem and decide him next strides.
The study of public administration only continued to grow over the course of the next two decades. As the study of public administration expanded, so did the development of s...
The counter argument of opinion as opposed to fact, proposes that citizens would rise up against martial law. In the case of a declared ‘State of emergency’ in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, the facts show that the military were able to forcibly confiscate weapons with