We use a simple example to illustrate the steps involved in moral decision-making. In a district, the Panchayat has employed part time education assistants or vidyasahayaks to teach in primary schools. The District Development Officer (DDO) comes to know that many vidyasahayaks are not teaching for the prescribed number of hours. This is an ethical issue since the vidyasahayaks are in breach of
the agreement or their promise. Another moral aspect is depriving rural children of their right to education. First, the moral aspect of the question has to be recognised.
The second stage consists in fully describing the situation. By description is meant not literary description, but a full recitation of the facts of the situation. Facts have to be objectively stated. The available facts may often be incomplete, and people may see them from multiple perspectives. In our example, facts can be the norms of teaching hours for vidyasahayaks, number of vidyasahayaks who teach below this norm, whether others are available for hire as vidyasahayaks and whether the functionaries at Tehsil level have noted the problem and tried to solve it.
In the next stage, decision makers have to spell out clearly the moral issues and moral norms involved in the situation. This is a rather difficult exercise since the officials usually have a non-ethical perspective on matters. Their normal response will be to view the problem from administrative or legal angles as a lapse of discipline, symptom of low morale or breach of employment contract. The moral aspects are the need to meet one’s obligations, being fair to the children and being fair and honest.
The next stage consists in visualizing the possible alternatives. Here, all possibilities should be considered without rejecting any solutions outright. The options should not be reduced to a simple either/or. In our example, an either/or approach will be either discharging the errant vidyasahayaks or just ignoring the problem. Some alternatives could be: altering the working hours, schedules or locations of vidyasahayaks, running qualityimprovement programmes, and holding a general meeting with them to remind them of their social duties of public service.
The next stage involves projecting the consequences of the alternatives. A simple procedure is to list the alternatives and show against each its merits and demerits. This requires a little imagination; it is a form of ‘dramatic rehearsal’. In the example, the alternative of discharging may mean depriving children of teaching and parental dissatisfaction. If the existing practice continues, it may lead to slow deterioration of educational quality. We can list other advantages and disadvantages.
The process leading to the decision involves four steps which are interactive.
¤ Identifying the moral principles involved in each alternative
¤ Analyzing the extent to which each alternative can withstand criticism
¤ Considering to what extent higher moral principles apply to the situation
¤ Examining to what extent each alternative reflects on the decision maker’s image
In the third step, one can consider what decision about vidyasahayaks will maximise the utility or good of all concerned. The last step does not imply that the decision maker’s PR image has to be enhanced. But the decision has to reflect his moral approach.
Based on the above steps, a final decision is reached. In real life, one may not exactly follow the above sequence of steps. To put in general terms, public administrators especially in public policy making, have to make explicit the moral aspects of different policy alternatives. They also must bring to light the moral norms with which the policy alternatives are in accord or discord. Of course, in a democratic set up, the political executive takes the final call.
The final step is theresolution of theproblem.But in practicalsituationstheconclusion is hardly likely to be ideal. It will not represent a fine balance between duties and rights or lead to optimal
consequences. It is likely to be a compromise on the whole more desirable than undesirable. In technical terms, such solutions are not ‘optimizing’ but ‘satisficing’.
Method Based on Judicial Procedures: Outcome Justice
Gerald Pops and Thomas Pavlak, in The Case for Justice: Strengthening Decision Making in Public Administration have proposed another method based on procedures of justice which they regard as an integrative normative principle. Further, justice includes values like public interest, social equity and efficiency. They regard their approach as superior to other approaches which are based on technical rationality and efficiency (Max Weber’s theory), social equity, ethics and virtuous character of public servants. The criteria which Pops and Pavlak suggest are outcome or distributive justice and process or procedural justice. They also suggest the conditions for outcome justice and procedural justice. Outcomejustice has to satisfy the following conditions:
(i) Decisions should be based on the facts of the case. In evacuating people from a hazardous area, rescue workers should first remove women, children and the aged.
(ii) Decisions have to follow public policy. Decisions should seek to achieve the policy goals of the duly constituted political authority.
(iii) Decisions should not violate the formal canons of justice. Thus, no penalty should be imposed on anyone without giving him an opportunity of representing his case or allowing him to show why no penalty should be imposed on him.
(iv) Decisions need to strike a balance between strict adherence to rules and exercise of discretion. Rules try to ensure that decisions are taken objectively and avoid personal bias and partiality. As rules cannot cover all possible contingencies, administrative discretion has to be sometimes used.
(v) Decisions should serve the people or the ‘clients’ of the agency. If the interests of the agency or the service provider come first, then people will suffer injustice.