For the political person, personal gain, with the absence of controls and enforced standards, will precede public interest. On the other hand, administrative persons or professionals belonging to different fields define ethics rather differently from the former.
Stemming from these differences, definitions of what constitutes ethical behavior actually varies depending on profession, setting, and culture. The same is true with what constitutes corruption for attitudes toward corruption appear to be situationally determined. Therefore, all of these states that the classic question of whether public administrators are good or bad is just a mere rhetoric for the standards of what is good or bad are actually situational, depending on the setting and the task. .
The second point Frederickson asserts is that the question of rightness or wrongness of decisions rests on two broad philosophical traditions. First is the deontological approach which is most particularly associated with philosophers Aquinas and Kant. In this approach, decisions are based on duties or principles that are either right or wrong in themselves, the results being irrelevant to moral judgement. In short, decisions that are made are based on fundamental principles. .
The second approach is the teleological approach. Most particularly associated with Mill and Bentham, in this approach, decisions are judged by their consequences depending on the results to be maximized. These results can be judged on the basis of the individual, the family, the neighborhood, the group or organization, the political jurisdiction, or the nation-state. Correspondingly, in the modern context, this approach is referred to as utilitarianism. .
The apparent relative sense of right and wrong or morality of civil servants could be attributed to the fact that the public administrators world is one that is unrelentingly teleological, wherein policy and programs result rule.
