Past and Present Standards of Public Ethics in America: Are We Improving ?
| Author | Estes Kefauver |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271625228000102 |
| Published date | 01 March 1952 |
| Date | 01 March 1952 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
1
Past
and
Present
Standards
of
Public
Ethics
in
America:
Are
We
Improving ?
By
ESTES
KEFAUVER
THE
problem
of
public
ethics
is
merely
a
phase
of
the
problem
of
general
ethics.
At
the
bottom
of
the
ethical
problem,
for
both
the
individual
and
society,
is
the
conflict
between
the
self-interest
of
the
individual
and
the
more
or
less
collective
interest
of
so-
ciety
as
a
whole;
and
the
essential
problem
of
conduct
can
be
expressed
in
the
question:
To
what
extent
should
the
purely
selfish
ends
of
the
individual
be
sacrificed
to
or
limited
by
the
ends
of
the
society
he
lives
in?
Philosophi-
cally
the
conflict
is
between
selfishness
and
altruism;
politically,
between
self-
interest
and
public
welfare.
The
standards
of
public
ethics
have
accordingly
reflected
and
mirrored
the
standards
of
private
ethics;
and
the
dif-
ferent
standards
have
expressed
every
philosophical
point
of
view
from
the
cynical
to
the
idealistic.
Like
that
of
our
culture
itself,
the
behavior
pattern
of
our
public
life
has
traced
a
serpen-
tine
course
veering
between
the
easy
tolerance
of
cynicism
and
the
inflexible
propriety
of
idealism.
Cynicism
may
have
exerted
the
greater
pull,
but
gener-
ally
our
course
has
nevertheless
tended
toward
the
standards
of
idealism
more
and
more.
Our
standards
of
public
ethics
in
the
United
States
have
been
conditioned
by
certain
considerations
which,
whether
or
not
they
have
counterparts
in
personal
ethics,
have
provided
certain
limitations
on
our
idealism.
The
first
is
the
fact
that,
especially
in
a
crisis,
a
people’s
government
like
our
American
democracy
must
act.
A
democratic
government
can
never
leave
the
battlefield
of
action,
not
even
to
re-
tire
to
contemplation.
At
times
when
the
citizens
as
individuals
cannot
solve
their
own
problems,
ethical
or
practical,
they
turn
to
the
government
for
solu-
tion.
The
people’s
government
cannot
abdicate
in
such
a
situation;
it
is
forced
to
cope
with
the
problems
its
citizens
find
individually
insoluble.
This
forces
a
certain
need
for
expediency
which
drives
our
thinking
on
public
ethics
to-
ward
a
pragmatic
philosophy
even
more
strongly
than
is
the
case
in
our
indi-
vidual
thinking.
Secondly,
here
in
the
United
States
we
appear
to
be
committed
to
the
basic
concept
that
not
only
our
own
progress
but
the
summum
bonum
itself
is
more
likely
not
only
of
attainment
but
of
better
attainment
through
the
expres-
sion
of
the
individual
character
and
will
than
through
the
expression
of
col-
lective
wills
and
characters.
This
tends
to
keep
us
sympathetic
to
self-interest
and
also
to
define
general
welfare
not
as
the
state
in
which
the
welfare
of
the
mass
of
society
is
greatest,
but
as
the
state
in
which
the
opportunity
for
the
nobler
types
of
individual
self-expres-
sion
is
greatest.
This
idea
obviously
leaves
much
more
room
for
individual
interpretation
of
both
ends
and
means,
and
therefore
for
individual
interpreta-
tions
of
public
ethics;
it
also
tends
to-
ward
an
easier
identification
of
public
welfare
with
self-interest.
DOUBLE
STANDARD
FOR
PUBLIC
AND
PRIVATE
ETHICS
Moreover,
our
consideration
of
pub-
lic
ethics
has
been
and
still
is
condi-
tioned
by
the
existence
of
a
double
standard
of
ethics.
Although
our
pub-
lic
ethics
mirror
the
ethics
of
our
pri-
vate
lives,
they
are
by
no
means
identi-
To continue reading
Request your trial