Steps of Ethical Decision Making
RAS Mains, Paper II, Unit I, point 8: "Basis of ethical decision making: social justice, humanitarian concerns, accountability in governance; instrumental rationality versus value rationality". Also point 7 (dilemmas) and point 9 (method for case studies)
- Updated for the Jan 2026 syllabus
- Read time: about 15 minutes
Exam weight (our count from the real 2018-2024 papers)
1 direct question: 2021 Part C Q12 (factors essential in "ethical decision" making and harmonising ethical with administrative decisions, 10 marks). Nearby: 2023 Part C Q13 (moral dilemma, 10 marks) and 2021 Part A Q3 (ethical dilemma, 2 marks). This is our own count, not RPSC information.
30-second summary
Remember
- Ethical decision making is a disciplined process, not a gut feeling. Our seven-step ladder for administrators: spot the issue; get the facts; identify stakeholders and the values at stake; check law and rules; build options; test each option; decide, record, act and review.
- A reference framework: the five steps of Santa Clara University's Markkula Center: identify the ethical issues, get the facts, evaluate alternative actions through six lenses (rights, justice, utilitarian, common good, virtue, care), choose and test, then act and reflect.
- First half of the 2021 question (essential factors): facts, law and rules, values, consequences, stakeholders, intention, options, conscience and fairness of process.
- Second half (harmonising): the clash is often only apparent. Read the rule's purpose, use the discretion it allows, ask for written clarification, record reasons and dissent, and escalate if needed. Decline a plainly unlawful order in writing.
- Order of weighing (our suggestion): legality and constitutional values; life and dignity; public interest and the weakest; then consequences and efficiency (the three-question test of page 8.4).
Part A box (each line 15 words or fewer)
Remember
- Question: What is ethical decision making?
- Answer: Choosing the right action step by step, weighing facts, law, values and consequences. (13 words)
- Ready line 2: Steps: identify the issue, gather facts, test options, decide, act, then review. (12 words)
- Ready line 3: Harmonise by reading the rule's purpose, using lawful discretion, seeking written direction, recording reasons. (14 words)
1. What it is, and why stepwise
In a dilemma, pressure, fear and bias distort the decision. Steps slow us down and show every angle.
Four questions run together in an ethical decision: Is it lawful? Is it fair and just? What will it do to whom? Could I say it openly to everyone?
2. The seven-step model
(our frame, inspired by the five steps of the Santa Clara University framework)
| Step | What to do | The officer's question |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Spot the issue | Name the dilemma: which values or duties clash? | What is the real question? |
| 2. Get the facts | Documents, witnesses, timelines; separate rumour from fact | What do I know and what do I not know? |
| 3. Stakeholders and values | Who is affected? Which values are at stake? Who is weakest? | What if I were the weakest person here? |
| 4. Law and rules | Constitution, Act, service rules, orders; where is the flexibility and discretion? | Is it lawful? |
| 5. Build options | At least three, including a middle path | Is there a third way? |
| 6. Test each option | The seven tests below | Which option does the least harm and the most justice? |
| 7. Decide, record, act, review | Write the reasons, take approval where needed, implement, review the result | Can I do better next time? |
3. The seven tests for step 6
| Test | Question | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Legality | Is it within law and rule? | Constitution, statute |
| Rights and dignity | Does anyone's right or dignity suffer? | Article 21; SCU rights lens: "Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake?" |
| Universality | Would I want this rule to apply to everyone? | Kant: "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (page 6.3) |
| Consequences | Who gains how much and who loses how much? | Utilitarian lens: "Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm for as many stakeholders as possible?" (SCU) |
| Justice and fairness | Fair treatment, a hearing, the same rule for all? | Rawls's veil test (page 6.8); SCU: "Which option treats people fairly, giving them each what they are due?" |
| The weakest and the public interest | What does the last person and society get? | Gandhi's talisman (page 5.6); SCU common good lens |
| Conscience and publicity | Could I state it openly? Is my conscience at peace? | Gandhi (1920): the inner voice is the final arbiter; the "say it in public" test is a common practical rule with no single source |
4. Factors essential in "ethical decision" making
(first half of the 2021 question; our compilation)
1. Facts and information: correct, complete and timely.
2. Law and rules: legality is the first condition.
3. Values: integrity, impartiality, compassion, transparency, accountability.
4. Consequences: on all stakeholders, especially the weak; short and long term.
5. Intention: is the aim the public interest, or private gain or fear?
6. Conscience: the voice within.
7. Fairness of process: a hearing, reasons, records (natural justice).
8. Resources and time: can it be implemented (page 8.4: efficiency counts only when end and means are right).
5. When the tests pull apart: weighing
(our suggestion, not law)
1. Legality and constitutional values: unlawful or unconstitutional options are out.
2. Life and dignity: an option that hurts these needs very weighty reasons.
3. The weakest and the public interest: on whom will the greater harm fall?
4. Consequences and efficiency: among what remains, the greatest benefit. (Page 8.4: first "is the end right?" and "are the means right?", then "will it work?")
6. Ethical versus administrative decision: harmonising
(second half of the 2021 question)
Administrative decision: one fixed by rule, order or procedure. Ethical decision: one fixed by values and consequences. Most of the time they point the same way; a clash arises when the letter of a rule stands against its purpose.
| Type of clash | What to do |
|---|---|
| The rule is unclear or silent | Interpret by its purpose; ask for written clarification |
| The rule is firm but leaves room for discretion | Use the discretion and write the reasons |
| The rule is firm, no discretion, serious harm | Ask the competent authority for a written exception, give the facts, record it, propose a rule change |
| The order is lawful but you disagree | Record the disagreement and reasons on file, then follow the lawful order |
| The order is plainly unlawful or unconstitutional | Decline politely in writing, escalate; "I was ordered" is no excuse (Nuremberg Principle IV, 1950: "provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him"; page 7.6) |
The service-rule base: Rule 3(3)(ii)-(iii) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968: directions shall ordinarily be in writing, an unavoidable oral direction shall be confirmed in writing at once, and the officer who receives it shall seek written confirmation (quoted in the Supreme Court judgment, page 8.3).
Law itself harmonises: the Puttaswamy (24 August 2017) test of legality, necessity and proportionality, and Maneka Gandhi (1978), "just, fair and reasonable" procedure (page 8.4).
Puttaswamy v Union of India, 24 August 2017.
(nine judges; legality, necessity, proportionality; page 8.4): an example of placing the means (efficiency) inside the limit of a value (a right).
How to use in an answer
first the factors (facts, law, values, consequences, intention, conscience); then the harmonising ladder (read the purpose, discretion, written direction, record dissent, escalate); then an example (the hypothetical illustration and Subramanian 2013); end with Gandhi's conscience or Kant.
Thinkers and quotes box
| Name | Idea | Usable line |
|---|---|---|
| Immanuel Kant | The universal law | "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (see page 6.3) |
| Mahatma Gandhi | Conscience as final arbiter | "The 'still small voice' within you must always be the final arbiter when there is a conflict of duty." (Young India, 4 August 1920) |
| Santa Clara University (Markkula Center) | The virtue lens | "Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be?" |
| Supreme Court, T.S.R. Subramanian (2013) | Record the directions | "Recording of instructions, directions is, therefore, necessary for fixing responsibility and ensure accountability in the functioning of civil servants and to uphold institutional integrity." |
Diagram: flow, seven steps
Spot the issue
Box 1: then Box 2: then Box 3
Get the facts
Stakeholders and values
Law and rules (where is the flexibility?)
then Box 4: then Box 5
At least three options
Seven tests: legality, rights, universality, consequences, justice, the weakest, conscience/publicity
then Box 6
Decide, record reasons, act, review
then Box 7
Rule against ethics? Read the purpose, then discretion, then written clarification, then record dissent, then escalate; plainly unlawful order: decline in writing
Side branch (from Box 4)
How the concept was asked before: a direct question on the steps of ethical decision making came only in 2021 (10 marks). Dilemma-based questions appeared in 2018 (the Gita and Arjuna, Part C Q11), 2021 and 2023.
Common mistakes
Remember
- Writing only "listen to your conscience" and not naming steps, factors or the law.
- Advising rule-breaking in the name of ethics; the right route is lawful flexibility, written approval and record (and a written refusal of a plainly unlawful order).
- Giving no examples when the question says "Explain with examples", or presenting a hypothetical illustration as a real event.
Self-check (5 questions)
Remember
- List the seven steps of the ladder.
- Name four factors essential in ethical decision making.
- What are the five steps for a clash between an ethical and an administrative decision?
- What do Rule 3(3)(ii)-(iii) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 say?
- When the tests pull apart, in what order would you weigh them?
Worked examples (documented, with year)
Case studyT.S.R. Subramanian v Union of India, Supreme Court, 31 October 2013
(details on page 8.3): acting on oral directions weakens accountability; States were asked to issue directions like Conduct Rule 3(3), with written confirmation, within three months. In the Court's words recording directions is necessary "for fixing responsibility and ensure accountability".
Lesson
the bridge between ethical and administrative decisions is written confirmation and a record.
Case studyOlga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, 10 July 1985
(five judges; page 8.2): the administrative power to evict was accepted, but the Court directed that slums not be removed until one month after the end of the current monsoon, that is, 31 October 1985 (judgment text, Indian Kanoon).
Lesson
administrative need and humane concern harmonised through time and procedure.
Mini case study
Illustrative exampleHypothetical case (काल्पनिक केस)
Sandeep, an Executive Engineer (fictional), must award the repair tender for an old footbridge. The department rule says the lowest bidder (L1) gets the work. The L1 contractor's earlier work has been poor, and a bridge collapsed recently. The Chief Engineer says orally: "Give it to L1; the budget must not lapse at the end of the financial year." Sandeep faces time pressure.
- Stakeholders
- Sandeep, the Chief Engineer, the L1 contractor and other bidders, users of the bridge (the public), the department, the finance department.
- Issue and clashing values
- the administrative rule (L1) and budget-time pressure against public safety, quality and integrity. Does the purpose of the rule (economy) hold without quality?
- Three options
- (a) Follow the oral order and award to L1. Pro: budget saved, no dispute. Con: the bridge may be unsafe; acting on an oral order will not spare Sandeep accountability. (b) Refuse openly. Pro: firm on principle. Con: confrontation, no solution, the budget lapses. (c) Ask for the direction in writing; record on file his concern and the facts of L1's past performance; within the tender conditions (legitimate conditions such as technical eligibility, past work experience and performance guarantee, where the rules allow) reject an unqualified bid, or propose re-tendering or phased work; and write to the Chief Engineer and finance department seeking re-appropriation of the budget or carry-over of the work. Pro: rule and quality harmonised, the record protected. Con: time, the Chief Engineer's displeasure, budget risk.
- Best option and supporting value
- option (c). Supporting values: public safety (Article 21), integrity, accountability; the written direction of Subramanian (2013); Gandhi's conscience and talisman. By reading the purpose of the tender rule (best value, not merely lowest price), the ethical and the administrative decision are joined.
Lesson
Action: Short term: ask for the written direction, put facts on file, a lawful eligibility check, an alternative plan, a letter on budget re-appropriation. Long term: a contractor quality record and a blacklisting procedure, quality standards in tenders, third-party inspection of construction, a policy that reduces the fear of lapsing budgets.
Practice Questions
Practice questionabout 50 words
State the main steps of ethical decision making.
Model answer
First identify the issue and gather the facts. Then look at stakeholders, the values at stake and the applicable law. Build at least three options and test them against legality, rights, consequences, fairness and conscience. Finally, record the reasons, take approval where needed, decide, act and review the result.
Practice questionabout 100 words
"Explain the factors essential in 'Ethical decision' making. In case of ethical decision being against to administrative decision, how will you harmonise them? Explain with examples."
Model answer
Essential factors are correct facts, law and rules, values such as integrity, impartiality and compassion, consequences for all stakeholders, intention, conscience and a fair process. In a clash, harmonise: read the rule's purpose, use its discretion, seek written direction, record dissent and escalate. Illustration (hypothetical): when verbally pressed to award a tender to a poor-record lowest bidder, ask for written orders and decide through lawful eligibility conditions. Subramanian (2013) likewise required directions to be recorded. This route protects the purpose of the rule, not just its letter; keep reasons on file and review the outcome. A plainly unlawful order should be declined in writing.
Real PYQs
2021Paper II, Part C Q1210 marks
Explain the factors essential in 'Ethical decision' making. In case of ethical decision being against to administrative decision, how will you harmonise them? Explain with examples. Notes 4 and 6 of this page answer it fully.
2023NearbyPaper II, Part C Q1310 marks
What do you mean by moral dilemma? Should personal ethics take precedence over professional ethics in a situation of moral conflict? (pages 7.1 and 7.5; the ladder and tests here help with the second part).
2021NearbyPaper II, Part A Q32 marks
What do you understand by ethical dilemma? (page 7.1).
How to Write This Answer
Introduction
meaning of ethical and administrative decisions
Body
- essential factors; harmonising ladder; two examples
Conclusion
the purpose of a rule, not its letter; within law
Value addition
- Gandhi's conscience, Kant, Subramanian
One-page Revision
- Seven steps: issue, facts, stakeholders and values, law, options, test, decide-record-act-review
- SCU five steps and six lenses
- seven tests: legality, rights, universality (Kant), consequences, justice (Rawls), the weakest (talisman), conscience/publicity
- factors: facts, law, values, consequences, intention, conscience, process, resources
- harmonise: read purpose, discretion, written clarification, record dissent, escalate; plainly unlawful order: decline in writing
- AIS Conduct Rules 1968 Rule 3(3)(ii)-(iii)
- Subramanian 31.10.2013
- Olga Tellis 10.7.1985
- Puttaswamy 24.8.2017
- Nuremberg IV (1950)
- Gandhi 4.8.1920
- Case: Engineer Sandeep, L1 tender, oral order, written direction.