Public Ethics

Whistleblowing is the practice through which the member of a legitimate organization voluntarily reports some wrongdoing, with the intention that corrective action should be taken to address it. Recently, thanks to the public exposure of abuses of governmental secrecy to cover gross violations of human rights and basic freedoms (e.g. Edward Snowden), whistleblowing has become of interest of political philosophers. However, scholars and experts in all fields keep looking at whistleblowing as something problematic, if not presumptively wrong.
Whistleblowing is seen as problematic because it often entails the breaking of promissory obligations (e.g. organizational loyalty), role obligations (e.g. secrecy about one’s job and organization’s products and activities), and violations of basic rights (e.g. personal privacy). What is more, whistleblowing often entails high personal risks and costs – from retaliation and demotion at work, to isolation in society, up to life-threats and lifetime imprisonment. For all these reasons, whistleblowing is never obligatory in normal or ordinary circumstances. Whistleblowing is obligatory only in extraordinary circumstances only – typically, when one has well-grounded evidence about a grave wrongdoing, and all other channels to address such a grave wrongdoing have been tried and inexorably failed.
The idea of whistleblowing as extrema ratio is generally shared in the public debate, and it contributed to create an imagine of whistleblowers as modern heroes. This had the effect of reducing whistleblowing to a ‘one-shot game,’ where an individual sacrifices everything for the sake of higher moral ideals. In this paper, I challenge the basic intuitions underpinning what I shall call ‘the mainstream view of whistleblowing,’ and I argue that obligatory whistleblowing applies in ordinary circumstances – namely, when one has either less than well-grounded evidence or the wrongdoing is less than grave, or both – to all members of an organization.
After a general characterization of the mainstream view (§1) and its shortcomings (§2), I try to show how the occurrence of a grave wrongdoing about which one has well-grounded evidence has the unwelcome effect of ruling out morally relevant cases of obligatory whistleblowing. I then propose a more inclusive view according to which whistleblowing is always morally required (§3). I defend this view on the basis of three ideas. First, I ground the duty whistleblowing on idea of mutual accountability, according to which each and every member of an organization is accountable to one another, in virtue of the interrelatedness of organizational roles. Second, I relax the standard of evidence required for the justification of whistleblowing, introducing the notion of role-fitting evidence – where the appropriate standard of evidence is determined not only by the specific information one can access and disclose, but also by the role a whistleblower occupies within the organization. Third, the foreseeable high personal risks and burdensome social costs for whistleblowers do not cancel out the duty for individual members of an organization to report wrongdoings, but they only lift the individual duty to report as long as appropriate measures for the protection of whistleblowers (within as well as outside the organization) are not in place.

In this paper, I try to show that ‘whistleblowing’ refers to a distinctive duty to report. It is ‘distinctive’ in two senses. First, whistleblowing is not a mere instrument to discharge other familiar moral and legal duties (such as the harm principle or professional obligations). Second, whistleblowing is of fundamental importance to stop wrongdoings, or to prevent them from occurring; therefore, without blowing the whistle, certain wrongdoings will occur or keep occurring.

Whistleblowing has become a largely discussed topic mainly as a consequence of such headline cases as those of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. However, the grounds for its justification within political theory and public ethics remain underexplored. Although it is intuitively clear what a whistleblower does – she reports wrongdoings – it remains a matter of great controversy what ‘whistleblowing’ means or consists in, what makes whistleblowing the morally right thing to do, and, more importantly, whether whistleblowing is or can be seen as a duty.
Sometimes, to blow the whistle might be very demanding because of the potential burdensome consequences whistleblowers might face, including retaliation and the loss of their job, up to death threats. In these cases, it seems very difficult to justify anything like a duty of whistleblowing, although to blow the whistle could remain a good and praiseworthy thing to do. Other times, the available evidence on an alleged misdeed might not be strong or clear enough to prove its occurrence, thus making whistleblowing ineffective. And even if whistleblowing turned out to be the right thing to do in specific circumstances, it could disrupt the relations among co-workers and severely compromise the reputation of an institution, thus diminishing its general trustworthiness. Hence, why ought one to blow the whistle?
This book offers a critical examination of these questions and offers a justification of whistleblowing as a duty of office that belongs to a public ethics of organizational accountability. The book argues that any legitimate organization has the duty to establish safe and effective reporting mechanisms to make the practice of whistleblowing possible to counteract such forms of organizational wrongdoing as corruption. Individual officeholders have a duty to blow the whistle only if these mechanisms are in place. In this sense, while unlawful leaks of information remain a controversial issue of personal morality, the book defends the practice of whistleblowing as an organizational duty of public ethics.

Les reconfigurations sociales et politiques qui ont cours depuis quelques décennies participent à la transformation des systèmes de valeurs qui s’opère actuellement dans le champ patrimonial. Le devoir de mémoire est souvent entendu comme une obligation fondamentale lorsque l’on pense le patrimoine. Or, au-delà de cette obligation essentielle à l’égard du passé, quelles sont les nouvelles obligations éthiques qui émergent dans le champ patrimonial ? Quels sont les fondements de la responsabilité éthique qui en découlent ? Cet article présente trois enjeux émergents dans le secteur patrimonial pour discuter des formes de la responsabilité auxquelles ils font appel. La reconnaissance et la représentativité du patrimoine, la durabilité du patrimoine ainsi que l’altérité du patrimoine constituent les grands débats qui nous conduisent à aborder les nouveaux discours éthiques sur la responsabilité patrimoniale contribuant à influencer la restructuration de l’agir et de la pensée professionnelle dans le secteur.
Important social and political changes that occurred decades ago now have a profound effect on common beliefs and values in the heritage sector. The duty of memory is often defined as an essential obligation when considering heritage. Going beyond this fundamental obligation to the past, we ask: what are the new forms of ethical obligations that are now emerging in the heritage sector? What are the ethical foundations for responsibility in our field? This article presents three emerging issues that highlight the question of ethical responsibility. Heritage’s capacity to be inclusive and representative, its sustainability, and its otherness all constitute fundamental questions and elements of the new ethics of responsibility that is reshaping and influencing heritage professionals and their practices.

Course Objectives:
This course will introduce you to the study of ethics and the practice of applying ethical theories and ethical thinking to situations of everyday life.  Your interests and ideas, combined with the direction we gain from our texts, will help determine which questions we will address as a class, and how we will address them.

Hrvatsko zakonodavstvo uvelike različito tretira državne i lokalne dužnosnike koji su na svoje javne dužnosti izabrani ili imenovani politički od državnih i lokalnih službenika koji su sukladno ustavnom načelu o dostupnosti javnih službi pod jednakim uvjetima svakom državljaninu na svoju profesionalnu poziciju postavljeni temeljem javnog natječaja. U javnosti se ponekad postavljaju pitanja o razlikama pravnog statusa te dvije kategorije ljudi te o mogućnostima da se i za dužnosnike uvedu neke odredbe i mehanizmi koji bi napokon eliminirali sadašnju situaciju u kojoj se za profesionalne državne i lokalne upravne službenike zahtijevaju viši i stroži standardi nego za državne i lokalne dužnosnike.

This work analyzes the relation, in civil society, between the public ‘political forum’ and ‘background cultures’ and the position occupied in it by the citizen of a liberal and democratic society. This society is characterized by a structural condition of ‘reasonable pluralism’, a term used by John Rawls. The problem considered in this research has been developing with regard to the same question that Rawls poses at the end of his first lesson of Political liberalism. In other terms, the question is how the permanence over time of a stable and just society, composed of free and equal citizens deeply divided by their "reasonable comprehensive doctrines" is possible. In particular, the question is how to grant the reasonableness of citizen, the typically liberal virtue defined by Rawls as the citizens’ capacity to be recognized as equally capable of having a sense of justice and an idea of the good, making it possible to pass from the simple “fact of the pluralism” to “reasonable pluralism”.

Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde siyasi tercihler içinde en büyük önem ülkenin re­fah seviyesinin arttırılmasıdır. Özellikle yoksul ülkelerin sorunu yoksulluk ve sefaletten bir an önce kurtulmaktır. Yoksulluktan, kalkınma yönlü toplumsal değişimin önderleri demokratik rejimIerde kaçınılmaz olarak seçilmiş siyasiler olacaktır. Klasik ortodoks söylemin aksine ülkelerin gelişememelerinin neden­leri çoğunlukla kendi iç dinamiklerinde yatmaktadır. Ülkenin gelişmesi için mücadeleye girişecek olan siyasetçi, dış unsurlardan çok iç unsurlarla mücadele etmek zorunda kalmaktadır.

La notion de corruption désigne la captation illicite de moyens publics
à des fins privées. Cet ouvrage propose une approche originale de
la corruption en engageant une analyse philosophique qui s’inscrit
dans le fil de la pensée machiavélienne d’inspiration républicaine. La
corruption apparaît comme un mal parce qu’elle rompt la condition
d’égalité entre les citoyens. Le fait qu’elle perdure dans les démocraties
contemporaines sous des formes variées suggère une certaine faillite
de la thèse de Max Weber, à propos de la transformation des sociétés
modernes progressivement régies par « l’autorité légale-rationnelle ».
Cela souligne également la réalité d’un pouvoir social structurant, un
pouvoir oblique, dont l’ouvrage s’attache à comprendre la logique par
l’observation de cas d’espèce. Le problème posé par la corruption
ne peut se régler par une approche purement juridique. On ne peut
pas non plus, pour les démocraties pluralistes d’aujourd’hui, espérer
ranimer la vertu civique des Anciens. Dans nos sociétés « d’après la
vertu civique », traversées par certaines formes irréductibles du pouvoir
oblique, quelle éthique publique est donc aujourd’hui possible ?

Prompted by the 2017 commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, international scholars and practitioners from both church and state examine the legacy of Martin Luther in the life, work, and reception of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, asking how this contested tradition might guide the public role of the church in the future.

come l’uscita dall’epoca delle
guerre di religione è avvenuta mediante l’imporsi di un valore
“debole” e trasversale, quello della tolleranza, così l’uscita
dalle guerre di quelle “nuove religioni” che sono state i totalitarismi
(guerre che hanno forse rappresentato l’ultimo grande
impatto del continente europeo sul mondo intero) è avvenuta
mediante l’imporsi di una Istituzione neutrale e liberale, che
dimettesse il conflitto rischiando però di stemperare fino allo
sfinimento la ricchezza delle diversità culturali del continente: l’Unione Europea.

The adage 'that's politics', or 'I don't do politics', encapsulates a widespread sense of growing despair and disillusionment with the status of democratic politics and its practitioners – sentiments which manifest themselves in political disengagement, withdrawal, and apathy. The disagreements on the magnitude and precise symptoms of disenchantment aside, scholars and pubic pundits of all stripes agree on this much: democratic politics is in crisis and in need of renewal. The sense of loss and despair, and the corresponding crisis and withering away of democratic politics are not just crystallised in the rejection of 'politics-as-usual' – the quest for withdrawal from formal democratic participation, and our thriving culture of anti-political sentiment. Rather, a number of commentators and public pundits have recently lamented and derided the passion for protest and dissent which has erupted beyond the walls of our democratic institutions and which has manifested in the birth of social movements, modalities of resistance, and waves of mass protest – i.e. the Occupy Movement, Black Lives Matter, the Women's March, and anti-Brexit campaigns. " We need no more marchers. We need more mayors " , implores Mark Lilla. Contemporary modes of extra-institutional resistance, opposition, and defiance, it is argued, are neither antidotes to intra-institutional inertia nor indicators of genuine political vitality; rather, they are symptoms of the malaise of democratic politics. Behind such cries of despair and scorn of contemporary opposition lie two discrete, yet interrelated concerns: i) extra-institutional dissent is unsustainable and politically ineffective a mode of civic engagement, ii) extra-institutional dissent is apolitical, and illegitimate. Using these provocative claims, the conference seeks to shed new light on the ways in which we should approach and conceive of resistance and defiance, injustice and political disenchantment.

We welcome papers from established scholars, early career scholars, and postgraduate researchers as well as practitioners and activists on the following, non-exhaustive list of topics:

• The ethics, legitimacy and/or value of extra-institutional resistance
• The (un)sustainability of contemporary modes of political protest and resistance
• Reforming political institutions and domesticating or taming extra-institutional resistance
• Civil Disobedience and other types of illegal political action
• Secession and resistance
• Political resistance and the problem of dirty hands
• Resistance and identity politics
• The ethics of violent struggle and/or covert opposition
• Acts of Everyday resistance – i.e. hunger strikes, satyagraha, hacktivism, and symbolic defiance
• The aesthetics of dissent
• Social movements (both contemporary and historical) and the re-emergence of populisms, left and right
• The possibility of a politics of the common good amid pluralism and conflict.

Çocuk işçiliği veya çalışan çocuklar olgusu, bir kamu politikası olarak, sanayi sonrası dönemde, kapitalist ekonomik ve toplumsal formasyonda meydana gelen köklü dönüşümlerle gündeme gelmiştir. Günümüzde, ülkelerin sosyoekonomik ve kültürel yaşam deneyimleri içinde, çocuk emeğine yönelik yaklaşımın farklı boyutlar taşıdığı görülmektedir. Bu yazıda, küresel ekonominin ve özelde de kayıt dışı sektörün önemli bir bileşeni olarak çocuk emeği, piyasa ahlakı ve kamusal sorumluluk kavramları ekseninde analiz edilmektedir. Bu çerçevede, küresel ekonominin temel girdileri içinde, kolay ve ucuz emek olarak ağırlığı giderek genişleyen çocuk emeğinin moral ve toplumsal boyutu üzerinde durulacaktır. Çocukların bilişsel, fiziksel, ruhsal ve ahlaki gelişimlerini örseleyen elverişsiz koşullarda çalışması etik açıdan tolere edilemeyeceği gibi, onların maddi ve ahlaksal koşullarının yaratılmasını da güçleştirmektedir. Çocuk işçilerin çalıştıkları sırada uğradıkları çeşitli ihmal ve istismar biçimleri bazı ampirik araştırma bulgularıyla somutlaştırılacaktır.
ABSTRACT:
“Child labor” or “working children” came up as a public policy with radical alternations in capitalist and social formations after the industry period. Nowadays, it is possible to see that in the socio- economic and cultural experiences of the countries, approaches aimed at child labor have different dimensions. In this research, child labor which is an important component of global economy and specifically of unrecorded sector is analyzed in the enterprising moral and public responsibility aspects. With this framework, moral and social dimensions of child labor as an increasing easy and cheap labor in basic inputs of global economy will be emphasized. The fact that children works in inadequate conditions crumple cognitive, physical, psychological, and moral development of these children cannot be tolerated. At the same time, this also complicates to create material and ethical conditions for children. In this research, some criminal neglects and exploitation of working children are concretized with some empiric research findings.

Over the last few years, policy frames like fake news, government conspiracies, the deep state and alternative facts have left societal fringes to form mainstream narratives. Many people may feel these types of transitions to be novel, even tempting, in contributions and occurrence. However, new policy narratives routinely arise and follow certain patterns. Any radical challenging of commonly-held civic norms prompts new discussion of how frames create narratives in public policies, and perhaps more damning, in public administration itself.