Do no harm: A foundational moral framework for public administration
By: Ruddle, Travis Gates, Darin and Hart, David
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Public Administration Review Description: 85(6), Nov-Dec, 2025: p.1571-1581.
In:
Public Administration ReviewSummary: Do no harm (DNH) represents a foundational moral framework for public administration ethics. Prohibitive moral principles, rather than aspirational values, provide a more coherent and operational basis for ethical public service—even when confronting demands for proactive intervention. Bernard Gert's theory of common morality reveals how rationality and impartiality underpin moral rules designed to prevent fundamental harms, while acknowledging challenges of defining and ranking competing harms. This approach mirrors the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which constrain governmental action to protect individual rights. We further develop the DNH framework by examining free speech issues in higher education and extend its relevance to other controversial policy settings through a comparative ethical analysis that illustrates how institutions can navigate between harmful action and harmful inaction. DNH offers morally grounded guidance for ethical decision-making amid democratic tensions and political pressures.- Reproduced
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.70038
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 85(6), Nov-Dec, 2025: p.1571-1581 | Available | AR138312 |
Do no harm (DNH) represents a foundational moral framework for public administration ethics. Prohibitive moral principles, rather than aspirational values, provide a more coherent and operational basis for ethical public service—even when confronting demands for proactive intervention. Bernard Gert's theory of common morality reveals how rationality and impartiality underpin moral rules designed to prevent fundamental harms, while acknowledging challenges of defining and ranking competing harms. This approach mirrors the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which constrain governmental action to protect individual rights. We further develop the DNH framework by examining free speech issues in higher education and extend its relevance to other controversial policy settings through a comparative ethical analysis that illustrates how institutions can navigate between harmful action and harmful inaction. DNH offers morally grounded guidance for ethical decision-making amid democratic tensions and political pressures.- Reproduced
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.70038
There are no comments for this item.