Universal evaluation ethics? A comparative study of ethical guidelines from an Aristotelian perspective

This article examines how five international and regional ethical guidelines for evaluation articulate and balance universal ethical principles with contextual, cultural, and sociopolitical considerations. Using Aristotelian ethics as an analytical framework, this study compares the guidelines through six concepts: telos , eudaimonia , aretê , phronesis , mesotes , and zoon politikon . This analysis shows that while all guidelines share core values such as integrity, justice, and respect, they differ in how explicitly they address contextual influences and societal purposes. Some emphasize professional norms, whereas others foreground cultural relevance, community participation or global responsibility. These variations reveal underlying normative tensions in contemporary evaluation ethics and illuminate the challenges of formulating ethical principles that are both broadly applicable and contextually meaningful. This study contributes to ongoing debates on whether universal evaluation ethics is achievable and highlights the value of dialogue and contextual sensitivity in ethical guideline development.