Stephen Mitchell

We are working towards a group formative where we will dissect an ethical dilemma and use supporting frameworks to try and give clarity to it.

Our group is going to be looking at the issue of Dominic Cummings and exploring at it from a meta-ethics level, is it right or wrong; following that down into the normative and applied ethics, as appropriate.

I’m going to be looking at this from the viewpoint of public trust.  I have arrived at this perspective from trying to resonate with the teaching profession.  In England, upholding public trust in the teaching profession is one of the designated teaching standards.  We are graded against these regularly and they are required to be evidenced in order to pass initial teacher training.

What was the issue?
Dominic Cummings, a special advisor to the Prime Minister, broke the lockdown rules to travel from London to Durham in order to self-isolate. Mr. Cumming’s wife fell ill and the family did not feel that they would have appropriate child care for their child.  As many of Mr. Cummings’ co-workers had developed symptoms (some testing positive) and the likelihood of Mr. Cummings having COVID was high they both felt that they were going to be in vulnerable situations.

Mr Cummings and his family decided to travel 300 miles to Durham to self-isoalte.  This journey would have been considered against the rules.  However, the rules do allow flexibility where small children are concerned.

The media has depicted that there may have been alternative options available should he have stayed at home.

He feels that he “exercised his judgement”.  Possibly deontological ethics? Consequential ethics?

Special Advisors: Public Trust
As it turns out, there is a code of conduct for special advisors, written by the cabinet office in 2016: (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832599/201612_Code_of_Conduct_for_Special_Advisers.pdf)

There are a few things to consider here:

• “A special advisor must not behave in a way which would be inconsistent with standards set by their employing department”
• Special advisors are technically temporary civil servants and should operate within these boundaries (particularly the Nolan Principles of public office)
• Special advisers must not take public part in political controversy, through any form of a statement whether in speeches or letters to the press, or in books, social media, articles, or leaflets.
• The appendix the document links to the civil servant code conduct: Integrity; Honesty, Objectivity; Impartiality; Political Impartiality.
• Specifically, to this case, integrity is defined in this document as ‘putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests’.  Although caring for one’s family is of a higher level than caring for one’s own personal interests, it can be broad enough to explore the content domain.

In this regard, it is quite clear to see that normative ethics (right/wrong) can quite easily be explored within his framework.  The super-objectives of this document are to make sure that the special advisor remains a ‘behind the scenes’ persence and not a politically, outward-facing member of the team.  After all, they are not elected officials.

As the controvery and situation unfolded in No 10, it was quite clear that public trust is Dominic Cummings and his decision making, his honesty, and his integrity were coming under scrutiny.  A quick google search of articles found at least 45 recent publications picking apart their opinion of his error of judgment.  Taking away my opinion on this, and taking his word as gospel, let’s assume that he was trying to act in the best interests of his child.  With that in mind, this is still not a positive decision, given the framework which he is employed in.

Public trust and ethical frameworks

Selecting the correct ethical framework to try and balance this decision is a real challenge, particularly when considering public opinion – we will all be viewing this decision in our own way, and using our own subconscious framework in which to do so.  You can view it through multiple lenses.

• Deontological – based on personal opinions acting within the confide of rules
• Teleological – inherently right or wrong (in the eye of law, for example)
• Subject morality – depending on circumstance
• Objective morality/consequentialism (or in this case ethical egoism) – based on the consequences and end outcome
• Absolutism – based on values, rule of law

I’ve decided that I’m going to look at it through a deontological lense, but there would be merit in trying to aspects of all frameworks to pull in a summary opinion.

As deontology is based on using rules and having a system, this seems the best way to do so – applying deontological ethics to the framework of a special advisor (using the above as the rules).

There will be a limitation to use this approach, as it doesn’t take into account the consequence of the action, simply the action in itself.  For public opinion inquiry, this is why I feel deontological is a better fit.

Kant applies the three maxims (rules) to support you in making an ethical decision, so I am going to use this as a lens to explore public trust in the situation:

Maxim 1: Consistency – Universalizability Principle (can it be replicated by others as a universal decision?)
Can we say that we would be comfortable with all members of the British population who feel they may have COVID (and in fact are actually ill) traveling a substantial journey in order to self-isolate?
The general public perception: no.

Maxim 2: Human Dignity – Treat persons as ends and never as means to your end (not using other people)
This is interesting as in this situation it could be argued that Mr. Cummings position was used as a mean to his end, i.e. his positionality allowed him to break the rules (one rule for one and one rule for everybody else)
The general public perception: no.

Maxim 3: Universality – Could it be considered universally law-abiding? Would others agree? Would you be happy to see your decision reported in the press, for example?

This would be directly against the application of rules which govern Mr Cumming’s appointment as a special advisor.  From the publics’ point of very, they would not agree this was universally acceptable.  It goes against the expectation of ‘stay home…’
The general public perception: no.

 

Reflect on to own profession as a teacher
A deontological framework provides a framework for operating within one of the designated teaching standards (public trust).  However, it does not focus on consequences.  This will be interesting to explore more detailed in my Summative assessment – where I hope to show the ethical processes explored in arriving at a decision to reopen the school following the COVID pandemic peak.