Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis demonstrates how the do no harm principle enhances ethical decision-making in public administration, implying a strong basis for navigating complex political issues.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruddle et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: