Charles Hanzel
Steinbeck wrote that “the glory of the choice” is what “makes a man, a man.” In this line, he strikes at the heart of the study of ethics. Philosophical and ethical thought may revolve around an understanding of right and wrong, but the ultimate struggles each human must face are of choice and action. A knowledge of virtue is meaningless when decoupled from reality. However, when paired with a conscience, which involves the application of moral understanding, the possibility of an ethical life arises.
The best way to understand ethical decisions is to observe them in practice. In the film Billy Budd, the four ranking officers on the ship – Vere, Seymour, Ratcliffe, and Wyatt – are forced to make a choice that directly pits duty against personal conscience. Among these four officers, considerable diversity in opinion quickly becomes apparent in the case of Billy Budd’s court martial. After the facts of the case are established – that Billy killed Claggart, but only because he was tongue-tied amid the false accusations leveled against him – Seymour, Ratcliffe, and Wyatt are inclined to acquit the defendant. They know Billy to be an upstanding man horrified by the arbitrary and cruel punishments of Claggart, and far too gentle for murder. As a result, they understand that a conviction would be counter to the morally correct decision given the facts of the situation. However, as they are on the verge of acquittal, Captain Vere steps in to correct what he sees as the flaws in their verdict.
In the ensuing dialogue, Vere’s emphasis upon the need to follow the law and carry out the duties of office clashes with the arguments pushed by Wyatt and Ratfliffe concerning the moral responsibility each man has to his conscience, even in official business. In Dobel’s three models of public integrity, these differing opinions fall squarely within the legal-institutional model and the personal responsibility model, respectively. In laying out his argument, Vere makes clear that the law in Billy’s case is specific and argues that it is not up to their discretion. He asks the officers, “Are we free to choose as if we were citizens?” (Billy Budd). Vere believes the answer to be no, and asserts that moral and personal opinions must be set aside when carrying out the law. He furthers his argument by saying, “Our consciences are private matters, but we are public men” (Billy Budd). His point is that the duty of an official is to follow the law, not to make personal choices based upon conscience. Instead of allowing practical reason specific to each case to apply the ethical beliefs of the officer, Vere believes that the law ought to be carried out without question or deviation.
On the opposite side of the dialogue, Wyatt and Ratcliffe express deep qualms about foregoing personal responsibility in the matter. They insist that decoupling the individual from his official position is impossible, with Ratcliffe saying, “Officers are only men in uniform” (Billy Budd). Along a similar line, in response to Vere’s assertion that officials have a specific duty to perform without question, Wyatt asks, “Does that deny us the right to act like men?” (Billy Budd). In each case, their insistence upon the humanity of individual officers calls into question Vere’s notion that officials ought not bring conscience into their decisions. Instead, Wyatt and Ratcliffe argue that it is impossible to leave conscience behind because the ability to choose between right and wrong based upon reason is an inherent human trait.
In a similar case, the story of Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt illustrates another example of the conflict between the call to official duty and personal culpability in public office. As King Henry VIII’s Chancellor at the time of his decision to remove England from the Catholic Church, More was forced to choose between upholding his own moral loyalty to the Church in Rome or continuing his political career and endorsing the new Church of England. For More, the choice was simple and he resigned. He says, “When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of public duties… they lead their country by a short route to chaos” (Bolt 22). This line makes clear the importance to More of conscience, even when it is contradicted by official duty.
Despite being careful not to criticize the King after his resignation, More was placed in an impossible situation. Parliament insisted that all, including More, had to take an oath that assented to the King’s supreme position at the head of the Church of England. Once again, More was forced to choose between forsaking the Catholic Church or, this time, the punishment of imprisonment and eventually death should he refuse to swear the oath. More had little more trouble coming to his decision in this case than he had in the first. Again, he invokes his belief in conscience, arguing, “In matters of conscience, the loyal subject is more bounden to be loyal to his conscience than to any other thing” (Bolt 153). Despite his impending execution, More maintains his belief in the necessity of living his morals in every aspect of life.
In each of these cases, the positives and negatives to both the legal-institutional model, argued by Vere, and the personal responsibility model, espoused by Wyatt, Ratcliffe, and More, are illustrated. In the legal-institutional model, there is little to no discretion in the execution of duty and the law. This prevents passions and biases from influencing decisions made by supposedly objective officials who in reality are men and would otherwise be affected by both. However, on the other side of the same coin, it prevents flexibility on the part of officers when they are faced with unusual and unforeseen circumstances. With the personal responsibility model, because the officers claim some responsibility for the actions they carry out, the potential exists for officials to step in and prevent injustices, such as the killing of Billy. Nonetheless, the danger remains that officials will overstep, bringing passion and bias into every decision they make rather than limiting their use of discretion to extreme and abnormal circumstances. In each case, the greatest danger is that the beneficial aspects of the model will be taken to an extreme in a manner detrimental to the society for which officials ought to serve.
Therefore, in order to avoid these extremes in my own life and career, I must find a point of balance between the legal-institutional and personal responsibility approaches. However, coming to this middle ground is difficult. I must avoid giving too much weight to the legal side in order to avoid the situation of Vere, but I also believe a government devoid of order and a sense of duty would be ineffective and at the whim of the flawed individuals who comprise it. As a result, only in select situations should I or any other individual allow personal beliefs to supersede duty to the office or career in question.
In order to determine these situations, a distinction between personal opinions and values ought to be made. Each of us hold a number of personal opinions. For example, some people have the opinion that taxes should be raised, while others believe that they should be lowered. Some people believe that America spends too much on the military while others believe that it spends too little. Some argue that a carbon tax is a good approach to climate change, while others support a cap and trade system. These are all opinions, but they are not what I would call values. In my view, a value is a belief that is also a matter of conscience. Equality is a value of mine, and it would be a breach of conscience for me to promote inequality. The importance of life is a value to me, and it would be a breach of conscience for me to deny life. Human dignity is one of my values, and it would be a breach of my conscience to foster an undignified treatment of other humans. In comparison, it is clear to see that my opinions on taxes, military spending, or climate change do not count as matters of conscience.
At the same time, it is possible for an opinion to be shaped by values. For example, if I view equality as a value, my opinion on a policy of discrimination toward transgender military members will be a matter of conscience. In the same way, if I view life as a value, my opinion on preventive nuclear strikes will also likely be a matter of conscience. In cases where the two intersect, it is fair to say that an opinion is based on values and therefore is a matter of values. Nonetheless, this distinction between cases solely of opinion and those of values is crucial to reaching a balance between the legal-institutional model and the personal responsibility model.
I believe that despite being an official, one can never truly separate the actions taken and one’s own human responsibility for them. In terms of conscience, it matters little whether an act happens behind a desk at work or in the street on the way home. Therefore, I would argue that this is where the division between the call to duty must end and personal responsibility ought to begin. In government, it is common for officials to carry out decisions that they do not necessarily believe to be correct. In reality, if no government officials carried out decisions they disagreed with, little would be accomplished. However, this line of argument must have a limit when the conscience begins. When an action violates the conscience of an individual, that person should refuse to carry it out, resign or, if the option exists, have a subordinate or coworker carry out the act. Because values vary among different people, the line distinguishing opinion and value will take place at differing points for various people. Nonetheless, the line between matters of opinion and value is the best way of ensuring that a respect for duty exists while officials also take responsibility for their actions. In this way, the choices made by the individual men and women of public office can uphold the best aspects of both the law and conscience for the sake of the people they are sworn to serve.