Perspective Chapter: The Place of Virtue Ethics in Public Service Delivery

Abstract

Public service delivery at any level refers to the delivery of public good, public safety, and public well-being in ways that are accountable, transparent and ethically defensible. This is done through the process of steering, directing and coordinating the affairs of the state, organization and any constituted body. But quite often, the consequences of this state of affairs is that there is, among other things, a ‘moral deficit’ in the public service delivery process which is suggestive of the dearth of moral excellence, virtue inculcation and discipline among the actors in public service. Based on the literature and in spite of the pursuit of effectiveness and the condemning of unethical behavior by public service managers, scandals still occur and allegations are still made. In this chapter, a brief description is given of some ethical concepts viewed as important in addressing the issue posed. Our approach is based on the concept of public service delivery making indirectly the necessary assertions for good administration. It is also suggestive of the sheer disregard for the character of the moral and political agent which actually provides the basis for appropriate action.

1. Introduction

For many countries in the world, one of the major challenges confronting them is not only making public servants functional, effective, and rich but how to make them efficient, accessible and accountable to the people. This aims at making the public servants result oriented, and capable of delivering public service. There is a general perception that public servants are not accessible, lazy, not effective and corrupt. This perception presents a negative view on nation building. In this regard, one would quickly think of the political instability, economic stagnation, corruption, mismanagement, civil strife and various other civil disorders.

In the wake for endorsement of unethical or immoral practices as part of the public service conduct in most countries, the political climate has been traumatizing for the entire citizenry. It seems that most political leaders around the world subscribe to the Machiavellian principle of demagoguery in public service or virtue and good conduct ([1], p. XV). The moral deficit in the psyche of both the general citizenry and the people governed needs to be addressed. Given this “moral deficit” or “moral gap” in the public service delivery process of most states, there is need for proper education of political functionaries and/or would-be leaders in a manner that would bring about ethical rebirth in their actions, value orientation, civic resonance in public space, and attitudinal change. There comes an overarching need to foster moral sense of reason and the formation of character of public servants in ways that will enhance good and constructive governance globally. There is need to emphasize morality or goodness in public service delivery, for both morality and public service delivery thrive on values and both also have one common goal: practical realization or enhancement of public well-being.

For the fact that morality and governance thrive on values, achieving good public service delivery therefore, requires a high sense of moral consciousness on the part of those governing and the governed ([2], p. 82), to achieve a balance of morality. The natural inclination of humans to do evil, being self-centered and being mischievous in policing others, in a especial way, certain behavioral abuses among those in public service must be constantly checked ([3], p. 61). Virtue theory is a pioneering ethical principle that can effectively enhance virtue inculcation, value orientation, character training and civic education of state actors. As a philosophically defensible ethical model, virtue theory can significantly address the failure of public service delivery by taming the self-serving inclination and behavioral excesses of those in power and position of authority in the state. However, the burden of this chapter is to trace why some countries have been unfortunate in this regard. Some of the responses this chapter seeks to provide include the absence of the necessary intellectual acumen for public service delivery. Some scholars claim that would-be public servants are unprepared, with limited managerial skills necessary for public service delivery. Most disturbing concern here is why leaders would vie for public service positions they are ill-equipped to steer or handle.

2. Methodology

This study is expository, analytic and critical. Besides being a library-based work involving a textual exegesis and analysis of primary and secondary literature that is germane to the study, it also involves some visibility study, as the problem herein dissected can be experienced in the day to day activities of most countries including Nigeria. Criticism, the most dominant method of philosophical inquiry which entails expression of approval or disapproval of propositions would enable us glean some essential elements of virtue ethics to grapple with the failure of public service delivery in most countries including Nigeria. The chapter has been partitioned into six main themes that begin with an introduction, wherein the objectives, scope, thesis and background are carefully highlighted. The literature would aim at exposing the problem of public service delivery in the light of Machiavellian model, the internal and external factors associated with public service delivery. Next, would focus on the exegesis of virtue ethics as understood in this chapter. It would attempt a lucid account of the origin of virtue ethics in the history of philosophy, beginning from the early Greek era to the contemporary period. It also shows the congeniality and philosophical strength of virtue ethics and distinguishes it from other theories. In what follows, we shall develop a nexus between virtue ethics and public service delivery. This chapter would critically present a pathway for who a virtuous public servant should be. Finally, the chapter ends with a conclusion. It also adopts the University of Ibadan Manual of Style (UIMS) for documentation.

3. The problem of public service delivery

Essentially, the problem of public service delivery is human problem, which exposes a deep-seated predicament that raises a myriad of questions. What could really be the identifiable factors behind this crisis in public service delivery? Is it the case that the needed intellectual force and perspicacity is absent in public service delivery? Or is it that we lack leaders with the appropriate managerial skills necessary for public service delivery? Public service delivery can be seen as the conscious management of regime structures with a view to enhancing the legitimacy of public realm ([4], p. 7), or being a laid down procedure of setting and handling legitimate powers, which is donated by the people, to bring forth law and order, to guide their fundamental human rights, setting precedent for the rule of law together with due process of law, then it provides for those fundamental needs and welfare of citizens while seeking for their happiness ([5], p. 117). Perhaps this explains why Treasury Queensland sees it as a comprehensive and systematic process which includes all the interfaces and activities that shape or influence governmental or public policy formulation, enforcement and means or manner of enforcement ([5], pp. 86–89).

Public service delivery encapsulates layers of relationships and political nuances between policy makers (individuals who constitute the government) and citizens. It presupposes a power structure with its own hierarchical categories, incorporating the economic, socio-cultural, and political tensions within the society. The means of arriving at such peaceful solutions to existential problems and the implementation of such solutions into purposeful action make up what is called public service delivery ([2], p. 88). This is a spiraling process by which power is being exercised in various relations towards the attainment and implementation of the intents of government and the citizenry. As a major actor, public service delivery requires a principled leadership, that is, disciplined or principle-centred men and women who have knowledge of the social process and who will help lead their nations and citizens to the path of socio-economic development and growth ([3], p. 4). Essential elements or characteristics of public service delivery include effective participation in socially worthy activities, rule of law, efficiency, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, equitableness and inclusiveness. For the purpose of this work, public service delivery should be understood quite simply as the exercise of governmental power in the management of a country’s economic and social resources with a view to attaining inclusive overall growth and development, to meet the common good of the masses as opposed to selected groups of a state or country ([6], pp. 11–12). Some essential principles of public service delivery include strategic direction, accountability, capable workforce, ethics and integrity, fiscal, regulatory and administrative frameworks ([5], p. 91). Thus, public service delivery promotes and enhances the well-being of society, while poor or bad public service delivery destroys the goals of the society. It is the latter that is often referred to as the problem of public service delivery.

3.1 The Machiavellian model

There seem to be an open endorsement of unethical or immoral practices as part of the political conduct in most countries of the world. Indeed, political leaders appear to subscribe to the Machiavellian principle of demagoguery in politics or virtue and good conduct. Machiavelli had argued that morality weakens a leader and that a leader who is enamored with concerns about goodness would soon come to ruin. Not only did Machiavelli repudiate the need for moral goodness in public service delivery, he out rightly claimed that “it is necessary for a prince that desires self-maintenance (in public service delivery) to seek for goodness, to make judicious use of this knowledge or discard it, as he deems necessary ([1], p. XV). This Machiavellian principle is a fundamental assault to morality and it is a lucid misleading example of how public service delivery and political authority should be ordered.

Most leaders tend to have embraced this Machiavellian idea of Realpolitik which for J. Obi Oguejiofor has fuelled “political instability and incompetent leadership not just in Africa but the whole world ([7], p. 32). To awaken a politically moribund country to life, this hideous style of political public service delivery needs to be jettisoned or abandoned. The history of some nations, for instance, has been a tragic one in which the people have been tossed to and fro by both internal and external forces. There are scholars, who trace some country’s political quagmire on the evil of colonialism and the cord of sustained imperialism. In fact, some nations have been ‘captured’ and ‘imposed’ upon by foreign or alien socio-cultural systems or hegemonies, albeit with the acquiescence of host nations themselves. However, the nation and its people have always managed to survive these foreign intrusions and hegemonies.

3.2 Internal and external factors

Earlier in the eighteenth and nineteenth century some nations were colonized by European powers, it was ostensibly to bring enlightenment to the Dark nations. The effects of colonialism on those nations seem to have influenced the reason for which such nations came to see colonialism as synonymous with material exploitation, cultural expropriation and anthropological impoverishment. The severity of gross ego distortion, tilting of self-confidence, incapacitation of those nations, undermining of the possibility of germane public service skills and the consequent sentiment of low self-esteem, occupied the affected nations. Indeed, no human disaster can equal the dimension of destructiveness or cataclysm that shook some nations, through activities infested by colonialism. Today, the characteristic humaneness, personalism, hospitality, morality, wholesome personal relations, and the overwhelming sense of the sacred have been infested and obscured by the cankerworm of Western materialism and individualism among public servants. Civil strife and wars have become more vicious in some nations, as the people now possess lethal weapons, the same instruments with which they were kept in check by the West.

Various systems of public service delivery have been experimented in some nations but none seem to have produced any positive outcome or result. Post-colonial nations have remained the battle-ground of competing ideologies which have left those nations confused as to which direction to follow in the pursuit of ethical or and economic development. That truth is, there is a wide range of limit to diaspora knowledge or system of ideologies because as it turns out, such ideologies conflict with local norms of the people’s way of life. Then, there is the tendentious problem of dictatorship in such nation. As one country lunches a return to democracy, another reverts to one form of dictatorship or the other. As one country embarks on a national reconstruction after a bitter civil strife, another is caught in the web of war.

The economy of most nations is equally disoriented, and in some countries it is difficult to convince people that a person can be honest as a high profile public servant. The deficit in public trust seems to overturn some nation’s ideal of morality or civil obligation at the service of a carefree lifestyle where to steal from the government was not largely considered immoral ([7], p. 36). It is true that the Western invasion left some nations in shambles, though these same nations equally share in the blame game for years after independence and still, their leaders are yet to effectively steer the ship of state with a conscious, deliberate and determined effort. They cared little about moral and political training or mastery for constructive ordering of the state ([8], p. 53).

As a remedy to the failing system came the chants of democracy in some countries. But many years after its introduction, the story still remains the same. It stands debatable among scholars today, whether democracy is still the answer to the crisis of public service delivery, for democracy is in want of a strong foundation. It would seem therefore, that neither military interventions nor democratic intercessions could stem the tide of ineptitude that flowed through some nation’s political landscape. None of these systems took seriously the fact that political leadership and public service of whatever kind ought to truly be people-centered, having the prima facie and defacto responsibility to operate within the precincts of morality in order to facilitate the purpose of public service delivery which is towards a better management of human commonwealth, for the realization of the common good ([2], p. 89). Obviously, the peccadillo of omission of the total well-being of the people in the public service delivery process of these systems amounted to their outright failure. Indeed, any system that does not take into account the well-being of the people and the common good is bound to fail. That is why some scholars believe that a good society which enhances the good or well-being of all must coexist with moral institutions, for there is a strong basis or nexus between politics and ethics, and/or among politics, ethics and public service delivery ([9], p. 151). With respect to public service delivery failure, it would seem however that in reality, there is no political, economic or social problem. What we have basically are human problems. Even though and with particular reference to Africa, Osam Edim Temple has argued that the challenges of ethical leadership in Africa are fundamentally metaphysical ([10], pp. 47–65). It is necessary to state clearly that the present challenge in public service delivery is principally the deficit in right character, moral virtues and civic values which are essential elements for effective steering, right of proper ordering of the state. Morality, character building, virtues and values must be brought back into the picture of political statecraft and democratic public service delivery in all nations. Achieving good public service delivery in the state requires a high sense of moral consciousness on the part of those public servants and the public. This is germane for curbing the failure of public service delivery among nations, to achieve a balance of morality the natural inclination of humans to do evil, being self-centered and being mischievous in policing others, in a especial way, certain behavioral abuses among those in public service must be put to check ([3], p. 61).

Bringing to bare some external and internal reasons advanced by scholars for the public service delivery in some countries are colonialism, ethnicity, corruption, leadership deficit. In most countries, leadership selection processes take the imposition pattern, which is often along tribal groupings and ethnic aggregations. The effect of this unhealthy scenario is that visionary leaders are dropped and mediocre ones are selected or imposed on the masses. This unreasonable practice weakens institutional patterns of public service delivery. The political climate of most states, is such that leaders and/or would-be leaders frequently mount the podium of leadership without any good track records, good performance history, and with limited experience necessary for constructive ordering of state affairs. Consequently, there is need for erection of social institutions where public servants can be trained, with the language of values and virtues for effective socio-political engineering. Education, whether moral or political is a quintessential tool for social transformation, social ordering and progress. In what follows, virtue theory, also known as virtue ethics which deals with the issues of moral excellence or human character will be discussed.

4. Understanding virtue ethics

Let us look at virtue ethics, tracing its origin from early Greek era to the contemporary period. We will also try to tease out the essential ideas in this aspect of ethical thinking with a view to showing how it differs from other ethical theories. Discussions on the idea of the morality of human conduct fall within the scope of ethical philosophy. However, the aspect of morality that deals with the issue of moral excellence or human character is discussed under virtue ethics, also known as virtue theory. Modern moral philosophy has long been dominated by two basic theories, Kantian deontological theory on the one hand, and Utilitarian consequentialist theory on the other. However, increasing dissatisfaction with these theories has led in recent times to the reemergence of an alternative theory, known as virtue ethics, or simply, virtue theory.

4.1 Deontological theories of morality

Deontological, otherwise known as nonconsequentialist theories of morality are directed towards something that is not the consequences of one’s actions. When we consider utilitarianism and egoism, for both, ethicists are after the outcome of one’s actions. Egoists, on the one hand, posit that one should behave to suit their very own self-interest alone, while utilitarians on the other hand, posit that one should behave in manner that seeks interest of all affected. For these theories, what makes a good act is determined by how suited it is to the service of someone’s interest, whereas the goodness of a person is determined solely by how the person performs such actions that eventually brings about good consequences ([11], p. 56). A striking example is the Divine Command theory. The main assumption embedded in these theories averts that consequences do not, and obviously should not; penetrate into our judging of whether actions or agents are moral or not.

4.1.1 Act nonconsequentialist theories

The main preposition in this theory emphasizes the fact that general moral rules and theories are not required but only those situations, actions, and people we cannot make general claim. In making decisions the main crux is “intuitionism”; which stresses the right and wrong of a situation and which is determined by what the person feels (intuit) is eventually right or wrong, to say, a highly individualist theory ([11], p. 75).

4.1.2 Rule nonconsequentialist theories

This speaks to what is moral, not what the outcome is on the basis of following the rules. For instance, wherever there are rules that support morality then the consequences do not matter; aligning by the rules, which are right moral detects is our concern. The Divine Command theory asserts that a person’s action is right and the person is good if, and only if, he/she adheres to the commands which are given to them by a divine being, not minding the consequences ([11], p. 75).

4.1.3 Kant’s duty ethics

Immanuel Kant held that it is only through reasoning alone one can arrive at a ‘valid absolute moral rules’ upon which hold same weight as indisputable mathematical truths; and these very truths have to be logically consistent with itself, and not contradict itself. Again, these truths must be universalized. Categorical Imperative speaks to the fact that an act is immoral if the guiding rules that would authorize it cannot be implemented for all universally. Practical Imperative do not allow mere usage or conception of a person as means to satisfy another person’s end, it rather upheld the unique end of a person and not as a means (Kant, I, II, III).

4.1.4 Ross’ Prima facie duties

Sir. William David Ross was in agreement with Kant as to the establishing of morality on a basis other than consequences and on the contrary discarded Kant’s absolute rules theory. Rose could be situated between the dilemma of Kant and rule utilitarianism following his understanding of ethics. He proposed prima facie duties which all humans (public servants) should follow, except there exist more superior reasons why it should not be followed. Rose presented some prima facie duties in his theory, such as justice, fidelity, self-improvement, reparation, beneficence, gratitude, and non-maleficence (non-injury) ([12], pp. 21–22).

4.2 Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics began with the Greeks and most prominently Aristotle around fourth century B.C., but it has become significant to many contemporary ethicists. It speaks to the individual’s character being the most significant factor of ethical thinking, not minding the rules about individual acts themselves (deontology) or the consequences of those individual acts (consequentialism) ([13], p. 52). It seems to me that, this virtue theory stands out from the other theories we have considered for the fact that it speaks not merely on the consequences of an action, feelings of the individual, or rules guiding the acts, to influence the person’s growth (public servants) towards moral or virtuous character acquired through good actions or “virtuous” person or a public servant would do. What is primarily for virtue ethicists is not the judgment of acts or their consequences but the judgment of agents; for “we are what we repeatedly do, excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit” ([14], pp. 1105a4-1105b15). Thus, as an approach in normative ethics, virtue ethics can be understood as an agent focused ethics of being, which pride itself on concepts such as arête (excellence), phronesis (practical wisdom), golden mean (mesotes) and eudaimonia (happiness or well-being) ([15], p. 107).

The word “virtue” can be understood from a plethora of perspectives. Etymologically, the word virtue derived from the Latin virtus, meaning manliness or strength; or the Greek arête which designates moral strength or moral excellence ([13], p. 313). The opposite of virtue is vice. A virtue is defined as “moral excellence, righteousness, responsibility, or other exemplary qualities considered meritorious”. It is a character trait or quality, valued as being always good in and of itself. Virtues refer to certain qualities, might or strength displayed by an individual. It is seen as the moral strength that conquers the tyranny of voices. Virtue is further understood as a disposition to act in certain ways and not other ways. A virtue, as different from mere habit, points to a disposition to act for reasons that form a disposition which is exercised through the person’s (public servant) practical reasoning; it is built up by making choices and as expressed in the making of other choices. When an honest person decides not to take something to which the person is not entitled, this is not the upshot of a causal build-up from previous actions, but a decision, a choice which endorses the person’s disposition to be honest. Virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner is inculcated from a young age ([14], p. Bk II). The crux is on the good or virtuous character of the individual (public servants) himself, not minding the actions, the consequences of such action, and the feelings or rules guiding such an individual.

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics could be summarized thus: reality and life are teleological with the reason that they aim towards some end or purpose for the individual. Happiness is viewed to be the end of life, and reason is the basic activity of humans; therefore, the aim of human beings (civil servants) anywhere on earth is to reason in a right order so as to gain a complete life. A person has the capacity to attain goodness. This goodness could be achieved through constant practice that is predicated on a guide towards moral decision-making from a virtuous individual.

Alasdair Maclntyre made a contemporary exposition of virtue ethics. He averts that virtues are dispositions which makes one act and to feel in certain patterns and such a person would bring forth virtuous feelings within himself, which does not deterred him to act virtuously. This moral agent must state what this very practically wise and virtuous person (public servant) would perform in a given circumstance and carry out the virtuous act which such a moral agent must perform ([16], p. 149).

4.3 A leap from the Greek era

Undoubtedly, the Homeric poems set a great path for the onward movement of the Greeks moral philosophy. Arête, with its associated adjective agathos (good) with plethora of synonyms, stood out as the strongest word of commendation. In the Iliad and Odyssey, arête is visibly accorded to the nobleman and the hero, referring to their courage and strength, most importantly when expressed during competition ([13], p. 148). Moral ideals in Greek life were influenced by the belief in life beyond the grave. As Bobier observes, the Homeric man envisaged the next life as a miserable existence and loathed it. For that reason, his attention was turned to the present, where the real self lives, feels, thinks and enjoys happiness (14–15). Since Homeric morality was concerned with earthly existence, the moral sense becomes a matter of necessity and of prime importance for the distillation of virtues and values, in the hic et nunc (here and now). Within this pre-Socratic era, especially during the early mathematical and mystical conceptions of reality, the Pythagoreans believed in an individual’s return to the One. Therefore, as long as one is exile in the flesh, one must realize the divine element in oneself by the practice of virtue. This became the most effective means of imposing limits and order upon passions and of bringing human existence to a participation in the “harmony of the spheres” ([17], pp. 14–15). For the Pythagoreans, only one attained virtue by following certain rules and rituals. Virtue, in the end, became for them a legitimate process of purification whereby the soul was gradually freed from its tomb, the body. This progressive purification of the soul (via virtu) continued through a long series of reincarnations until eventually the virtuous soul escaped from the nocturnal or chthonic region to the divine region of light or the One.

However, within the Heraclitean corpus the discussion on virtue was grounded in the Logos. Only by understanding and by seeking constant union with the Logos can a person become wise, good, and happy ([18], p. 24). This can be obtained by self-knowledge because this leads to the Logos operative in the soul. In the knowledge of the Logos, an individual realizes that the tensions of life are balanced by moderation in all things, which is “the greatest virtue” ([18], p. 32). The Heraclitean depict virtue in form of the downward and upward movement of the soul towards the unitive force of the Logos. For Democritus, virtue lies in the ardent preference of such goods of the soul as uprightness, wisdom and so on. Democritus believed that true happiness, which is the real goal of man, resides in the soul: “Happiness, like unhappiness is a property of the soul” ([18], p. 107). That is why the ideal of the Democritean man is a “stable disposition” of mind that is unperturbed by chance and is characterized by a firm trust in nature as a never-failing source of pleasure and contentment ([17], p. 80). This stable disposition aids in the ardent appreciation of those goods of the soul, and also lurks as virtue, within the theorizations of Democritus.

In the passage of time, virtues like dikaiosyne (justice) and sophrosyne (self-restraint) were strongly commended as appropriate and necessary in the Greek society. On his part, Plato made a leap to demonstrate that self-restraint, justice and control using reason were possible avenues in which people could carry out their duties in the society, and for this reason they could not properly do so. Drawing from Plato’s early dialogs, virtue had same understanding to knowledge (good and evil) as required for the attainment of the highest good or eudaimonia, which individual need and action desires of him. Plato further posited that the rational faculty of the soul or mind is to rule the spirited part of human, while the appetitive and emotional parts is to lead all desires of the person and actions of the person to eudaimonia, which virtue is its main constituent ([19, 20], p. 246a). Further discussions regarding what came to be known as the Four cardinal Virtues: prudential (prudence), iustitia (justice), fortitudo (fortitude or courage) and temperentia (temperance), can be found in Plato’s Republic.

Nevertheless, the concept of arête (virtue or excellence) reached its apotheosis in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, making him its most distinguished exponent. He introduced a detailed/systematic account of what is known today as virtue ethics, with the threefold essential: arête (virtue or excellence); phronesis (prudence, foresight or practical wisdom) and eudaimonia (happiness, well-being or flourishing). Aristotle refers to a virtue as being a balance point connecting deficiency and excess of a trait in the Nicomachean Ethics. Speaking of the greatest virtue, he says, situates not in the very middle, but at a golden mean that is closer to each other, hence, the Latin maxim in medio stat virtus, “in the middle stands virtue” ([19, 20], pp. 436a–435b). Accordingly, an individual, for Aristotle has a function by nature to fulfill and the fulfillment of this function, with the aid of phronesis (practical wisdom) constitutes arête; for an individual therefore, the agathon (good life) is a life that involves such fulfillment. It is the interplay of these essentials which assures man’s true happiness (eudaimonia) in the end. As a teleologist, he posited that eudaimonia is not constituted by honor, power or wealth, but through the activities of the rational faculty in line with virtue.

The understanding of virtues by the Greeks was made known in the Latin era by Cicero and subsequent adopted into Christian moral theology through St. Ambrose of Milan. At the scholastic era, and through history, the best understanding of the virtues, having a deepened theological background was made possible by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics ([21], p. 194). During this period, there was an emphasis on such Christian virtues as Kindness, Chastity, Charity, Humility, temperance, diligence and patience. The very aim of keeping these virtues was to protect the individual against temptation of the Seven Deadly Sins which are: greed, wrath, lust, envy, gluttony, pride and sloth ([22], p. 75). Virtue ethics persisted as the dominant approach in Western moral philosophy until at the Enlightenment. It suffered a momentary eclipse but was revived by the writings of some philosophers like G. E. M. Anscombe, Philoppa Foot and Alasdair Maclntyre. Thus, virtue ethics is concerned with the development of the good or virtuous person, with emphasis on the good or virtuous character of human beings themselves, rather than on their acts or consequences of their acts ([23], p. 68).

4.4 Contemporary resurgence

Before and after Aristotle, emphasis has been on virtue ethics. However, Aristotle is the most consistent virtue ethicist and patron of the theory. Though popular at a time, it became eclipsed by deontological or consequential theories. The theory was later revamped by the writings of contemporary virtue ethicists such as G. E. M. Anscombe, Philippa Foot and Alsadair Maclntyre. Anscombe represents a contemporary attempt to revive Virtue Ethics. She presents a view of morality that goes beyond deontological imperatives and postulates that one should avoid a mistake of seeking a solid ground for morality built on legalistic notions like “duty” or “obligation” in a perspective of a general disbelief that there is no existence of a divine law-giver who is the source of such duty or obligation ([24], pp. 1–19). For this reason, she advocates a return to virtue ethics. Another contemporary virtue ethicist is Philippa Foot who also helped to shape the contemporary resurgence of ethical naturalism. Like other virtue ethicists, Foot argues that the virtues are beneficiary, that is, human beings do not get on well without them ([25], p. 450). They are beneficial both to the individual (as in the case of temperance), or to others (as in the case of justice). Foot sees the virtues as a kind of corrective to impulsive action, springing from desire or inclinations, requiring not only will-power but training and the development of good habits and dispositions. Foot questions the idea of moral judgments having a special commendatory or action-guiding force.

In his book The Object of Morality, G. J. Warnock like Foot, makes the virtues central to morality. His own preferred lists of virtues include: non-maleficence, beneficence, fairness and non-deception. Like Foot, Warnock tries to justify them in terms of their conduciveness to the satisfaction of human wants, needs and interests. But the wants, needs, and interests which they serve are those of people in general, rather than the agent’s in particular. For Warnock, the human condition is such that given people’s limited sympathies; things are inclined to go badly ([26], p. 197). The purpose of cultivating the moral virtues, therefore, is to ameliorate the human condition, by counteracting people’s limited sympathies and thereby making things go better.

On this part, Alasdair Maclntyre, like Anscombe, advocates a return to virtue ethics in general and Aristotelian virtue ethics in particular ([27], pp. 69–72). Maclntyre’s critique of modern ethical theory, outlined in his book After Virtue, is the most severe in virtue ethics. Maclntyre claims that present moral discussions do not make any meaning since they are based on moribund traditions. That is, for him, the enlightenment period abandoned Aristotelianism, particularly, the concept of teleology. Ancient and medieval ethics, he averred, uses teleological knowledge that human life does not have proper end or character, that is, man would not attain this natural end without preparation of himself. Thus, the philosophers of the enlightenment and their successors were doomed from the beginning because they lacked a teleological structure or framework on which to base their moral understanding. Maclntyre’s After Virtue ends with the question, “Nietzsche or Aristotle?”

At the instance that Maclntyre acknowledges the limitation of the book for lack of sufficient grounds for a definitive answer, he clearly stated that Aristotle offers the best answer for the problems identified in the book and not Nietzsche. By probing into Aristotle’s mind, Maclntyre held the view that virtues speaks to dispositions of not only acting in a certain ways but a feeling in certain ways, which brings forth a virtuous character in a person, not necessarily observations of rules or the calculation of such great consequences ([28], p. 70). Thus, for Maclntyre, to act virtuously does not mean acting against inclination (according to Kant), but to act from inclinations that have been formed through the cultivation of virtues ([27], p. 149). In all, Maclntyre advocates a return to Aristotelian virtue ethics and also combines Aristotelian emphasis on virtue with a modern skepticism about the possibility of an objective theory of the good for an individual in the community. However, the revived virtue ethics in some ways, appeals to feminist promoters, who are of the opinion that the other ethical theories (Kantianism and Utilitarianism) that championed on rights and duties, were viewed as male ways of approaching life, whereas virtue ethics, appealed to a recognition of the value of intimacy and relationships. Virtue ethics seemed naturalistic on this consideration; it makes a shift from the idea of keeping the commands to an appreciation of the way an individual might express his or her own fundamental human nature, and thus, fulfilling his or her potential as a human being.

In spite of criticisms against the virtue tradition, the truth is, virtue ethics has great prospects to enhance the moral life in people. The practical value has positive roles it can apply in politics, religion, education and other areas of public service life. However, we need to mention that virtue is not in born but acquired overtime. Human beings are able to acquire virtues through practice or habitual action. Since we are what we repeatedly do and since excellence is an art won by training and habituation, it is clear that it is not an act, but habit. In the final analysis, we are a sum-total of the choices we make.

5. The nexus between virtue ethics and public service delivery

The failure in recognizing that there is a close link between public service delivery and virtue ethics is responsible for the abnormalities experienced in the exercise of public service in most nations. Specifically, the urge to provide a separate understanding of ethics from public service delivery serves as a crucial reason for the collapse of most nations of the world. An aspect of the goal of ethics seeks to assist us showcase the needed moral behavior in any community. Talking about the goal or concern of ethics, it is safe to assert that it helps provide us with standards or reasonable guidelines to provide the needed direction of the affairs of people in the ‘polis,’ that is, the political society. Following our argument herein, it could be stated that ethics and public service delivery points to the same goals that provide means of helping public servants to acquire good moral behavior and the promotion of a good political order which will assist members of society gain socially adaptable goals ([29], p. 27).

Some scholars have stated that public service delivery is embedded in ethics and that all public service theory is embedded on some ethical premises ([30], p. 73). If this assertion holds water, it then means that ethics cannot be left out of the domain of public service, because the sole aim is determining what ought to be done by public servant, to encourage good life in the state. In like manner, public service delivery seeks to determine what the public servants ought to do and the manner it ought to be done, addressing also how a society should be handled by the public servants ([31], pp. 108–112). Isaac Ukpokolo held that ethics and public service delivery do not only have conceptual linkages, but content linkages with the sole aim of elevating interests of the public servants ([30], p. 78). Base on this, the public service life must be directed in a manner that reflects the moral values and civic virtues required to better the livelihood of all members of the society. On another note, public service delivery should reflect moral norms and those civic virtues required for fostering peace and harmony in the state.

Many nations are not doing well in the areas of ethical public service delivery and leadership. There is a noticeable gap between the ideals of ethics and the practice of public service delivery. This gap comes from many areas such as the tension that exists between public service delivery and morality, as noted by Niccolo Machiavelli and the misleading teaching of how public service authority should operate. Majority of public servants in the state show the desire to remain in power irrespective of the ethical implications that may come up. The unsatisfied desire for power has taken over the moral responsibility and duty towards the people they lead. Base on this, majority of the public servants have hastily digested Machiavelli’s tyrannical idea of demagoguery at the expense of ethical public service delivery. Machiavelli relegates the idea of moral goodness in public service delivery and counsels any leader (prince), that seeks (in power) to learn how not to be good, and either use or not use this knowledge, with regards to necessity ([1], p. XV). This narrative of Realpolitik, cautions would-be public servants to detach from moral goodness, because morality ruins a leader in his or her quest for power quaffing according to this school of thought. Where some public servants seek to follow this misleading teaching on public service delivery, there would be a gap created between public service delivery and morality or ethics in the society. In contrast, Ekanola states that this apparent gap points to “a moral deficit manifests in the psyche of both the general citizenry and the public servants who govern them” ([32], pp. 105–117). The lack of moral order shows off in various forms of vices which bring about poor public service delivery, absent of focus among public servants, and lack of dedication towards development.

5.1 Application to public service

The primary goal of teaching virtue ethics to the public servants obviously is the creation of a virtuous or ethical person; nevertheless, subjecting the public servant to act in an ethical manner and make them aware of doing ethical acts to make them virtuous. It has not worked successfully to hold up certain public servants and say, “Here is the ideal virtuous person; now act as he or she does.” Research has shown that most of our so-called heroes have had feet of clay, or at least not acted virtuously. For instance, many of our famous Kings kept slaves in the past. We also look at how many of our country’s presidents are struggling with their private and public lives. Some have still done considerable good for their country and the citizens, but they may not necessarily fit any pattern of such “ideal virtuous person”.

Virtue ethics constitutes a particular problem since it seems to be a shortcut, providing a more superficial solution to our ethical problems. For example, “just make all of the public servants, children and adults virtuous, and they would act virtuously” is much too simple an answer to our ethical problems. All that is needed is rational moral education (not indoctrination into a specific ethical code) which would help public servants learn all that is contained in moral issues and how to handle them. Acquiring this education would enable them understand how to act virtuously and ethically.

With an effort to curtail this tide of horrible public service delivery and delimit the Machiavellian dimension to public service delivery, sustained moral and public service awareness or reorientation in the public service culture of some nations is desirable. This ethical and public service education ought to stress on virtue inculcation, moral training, character building and value orientation of the public servant in the state. This education should reflect the civic values and virtues required to achieve socially worthy goals for socio-public service flourishing of the society. From this very requirement, Aristotle’s virtue ethics that speaks to character formation, moral training and virtue inculcation of the public servant for effective alignment in the community, would serve as a philosophically defensible ethical model for the reinvention of good character, moral goodness, civic virtue and germane values for decent leadership and civilized followership among nations.

6. A pathway for virtuous public service delivery

One of the sure approaches to providing ethical public service delivery is the mental decolonization strategy among civil servants through value education, moral and cultural of the entire citizenry. This pathway uses the externalist element as a causative factor for the question of public service delivery. Even when the effects of these factors are evident among public servants in some countries in recent times, it would only become pertinent to settle for an internalist remedy. This internalist remedy averts that to address basic nation’s question of public service delivery, obviously the person have to stop blame game. Since our concern is basically self-induced, we require critical self-examination and self-evaluation through moral and public service education among state actors. Among some nations in recent times, the kind of public service leadership is such that conveys low premium on moral excellence and probity. The new standard is that money; violence and power has become instrument of statecraft in the hands of public service elites, gearing towards forfeiture of character, due to systemic failure or do not have strong institution for character.

As a renowned scholar, Godwin Sogolo states that “public servants require proper education; such that comprises value orientation, attitudinal change and ethical rebirth” ([9], pp. 85–94). The public servants require rights and empowerment education that is directed towards the culture and way of life of the citizenry. This education is aimed at freeing the public servants from the shackles of political and economic slavery: internal slavery is identified by persons in public service together with their puppeteers from the powerful nations of the western world and elsewhere around the globe ([33], p. 162). Following the above remark, it could be construed that when we equate statecraft with public service duplicity in some countries, it is visibly clear that some persons lack the needed moral and public service tools for constructive public service delivery. Where these tools are not present, one is guaranteed of the constant show of despotic, ineffective and ineptitude public service delivery in many countries. Looking through most countries in the world today, there exists a noticeable ‘moral light out’ or ‘moral turpitude’ which influences the proper ordering of the public service delivery process. Our only pathway out of this moral and public service dungeon is the inculcation of values and civic virtues in the citizens and state actors. Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Madu states that:

The prosperity of any state does not depend on the strength of her fortifications, not on the beauty of her public buildings, but it consists on the number of cultivated citizens of the state, her men of character and enlightenment ([34], p. 10).

Having a feel of excellent public service delivery or being a beneficiary of good public service delivery demands a high sense of moral consciousness from the public servants and the people served. This is essential due to morality, for Utuama, checks on self-centeredness and mischief, the human natural inclination towards evil, by policing, most importantly the behavioral excesses of the people in public service or positions of authority ([6], p. 61). It provides a precautionary option against public service unrest and societal upheaval. If this argument holds water, we could say that moral education is necessary for the flourishing and survival of human community. Moral education develops a heightened sense of good or bad, right or wrong; a sense of rectitude that comes from socialization. According to Sogolo, it is not possible “for us to have a good society devoid of some kind of moral institutions” ([9], p. 151). Base on this, moral education remains instrumental for inculcating in public servants the right public values (from the right means) essential for constructive public engagement and relationship in the state.

Public service delivery education becomes vital for stemming the tide of public service delivery failure in countries of the world. The vital duty of public service education is to instill in the public servants the mental capacity to understand and handle social or political issues in reasonable and efficient manner essential for coexistence and the maintenance of social institutions. In this regard, the stress is on acquisition of values that enable or empower the civil servant to acquire those reasoned objectives in the state. By civic virtues, values or right dispositions were thought of by Philippe Schmitter’s character traits, such as: self-restraint, trust, honesty, capacity for cooperation, loyalty, tolerance, sociability, civility, compassion, courage, respect for the worth and dignity of each person, concern for the common good and a sense of public service efficacy ([35], p. 143). Let us state that the moral and public service delivery education which is either acquired formally or informally points at one goal: the practical realization of the happiness in civil service delivery.

In the book Politics, Aristotle asserts that “man is a political animal (zoion politikon)” ([14], pp. 1253a1–18). For the animal (whatever Aristotle meant by that) require to be educated through constant habitual virtue acquisition, character building, value transformation and moral instruction. In the instance of the public servant here could be referred to that animal does not have the necessary training to enable him relate with others at the micro level in the society, notwithstanding, it would post great difficulty for the civil servant to relate seamlessly with the economic, political ideals and social values at the macro level. The first stage of this moral education for active participation in public service delivery starts informally from the macro level of the society, known as families or homes, and from the formal level at schools, places of religious worships and social gatherings of the society. This ethical reorientation needs to be accorded serious attention, for it possesses the power of molding in pupils the desired knowledge of all it takes to be responsible citizens of the society. Ethical reorientation has the potential to make the pupils become morally sound in mind and politically equipped for meaningful and significant impact in the society.

In the time past, philosophers and other scholars have been clamoring for the addition of ethics as one discipline to be taught in primary and secondary schools. This quest is often greeted with oppositions—no credence to the activities of moral relativists and skeptics who vehemently rile at the thought of a universal moral standard which binds every public servants in the society. In a specific context, it has been very difficult to include ethics in primary and secondary schools, with this; it becomes all important to make way for augmenting the curriculum of civic education to address right principles for pupil’s instruction, values and sustained ethical theories. Achieving this would serve to bring forth the desired civic and moral virtues among the incoming public servants for constructive social engagement in the state.

The question of how the active public servants or those in the position of authority are educated to attain the needed moral and civic virtues for public service delivery needs swift attention. We observe that it is not as easy as stated, due to certain kind of settled public service delivery habits in the public service culture among nations. Within the Aristotelian clime, when something is said to become a habit, it points to a settled tendency or usual manner of behavior; an acquired mode of behavior that has become nearly or completely involuntary. It speaks to a quality in itself that is very difficult to alter, to dispose or ill the subject in question, in which is found, either directly in itself or in relation to its operation. Habits are behaviors, performed without much resistance, acquired by repetition, associations or inclinations, expressed with little or no thought and activated ([36], p. 113).

And so, the most efficient manner to teach the needed civic virtues and values among the public servants are through the influence of ethical and social institutions. It is pertinent to erect one of such institutions where there is none, because it is not possible to have a good society without some kind of social and moral institutions. Godwin Sogolo states:

The primary duty of a society from cradle-up is to mould the public servant by teaching him standardized modes of behaviour seen in social institutions. On the flip side, this process is easier, but on the other, it follows an unbridled indoctrination process ([9], pp. 43–51).

Sadly, neither the easier process nor the indoctrination process of virtue education would guide a consistent attitude to the pattern of public service delivery. And this is highly lugubrious. In event where our social and moral institutions are not functioning as expected, to checkmate the excesses among public servants, most likely would witness a complete decay of public service delivery in some nations. As a panacea, the establishment of ‘Citizenship and Public Service Training Centres’ remains a pathway for the onward molding of present and future public servants in civic and moral qualities for constructive public service delivery.

Again, to enjoy a healthy public service delivery culture, philosophers need to delve into mainstream public service. The truth is, ‘until philosophers play active role in public service delivery or public servants engage actively in philosophical consciousness,’ the issue of public service delivery will stay the same. Philosophers majoring in Values, language, logic, virtues, etc., would be adequately equipped to navigate the public service terrain for significant social engineering. Philosophers ought to demonstrate willingness in public service delivery and not an armchair public servant that only brings about unhappiness, rage and misery. The subject matter of Philosophy itself stands at the heart of every well-meaning nation. Still, the puzzle is if we can boast of the ‘will’ to bring this influence to fruition? At the ambience of Aristotle’s virtue ethics, wrap attention should be accorded to the term akrasia, translated to mean weakness of the will, which points to knowing the right thing to do because it promotes the good even in the absence of will or moral stamina for it. This failing, nonetheless, remain unchallenged. Based on this, mistrust exists among the populace towards the state for not being able to initiate or implement policies that would better the lives of the public servants. As a crucial key for effective public service delivery, an over arching return to character training, value orientation and ethical building would win back the trust.

7. Conclusion

The hallmark of effective public service delivery is ethics and accountability. To this end, public servants have a crucial role to play in guaranteeing the accountability, efficiency of government business, transparency, and hence shun appropriation of public property for personal use. This is not only applicable in financial terms, rather in general terms, in the areas of accepting responsibilities for the outcome of their actions in using the resources of the country (material, human and finance) to bring about public goals. By doing so, they should keep watch by recognizing the inadequate approaches advanced by scholars to grapple with the failure of public service delivery in most nations of the world and given their disregard for the character of the moral and public service agent. To this end, this chapter has proposed virtue ethics as a better approach to stemming the tide of public service delivery failure in some states. This is because virtue ethics promotes good character traits in persons, providing morally appropriate grounds for intelligible actions and deliberations in the public service delivery arena. It also provides a check to mischief, self-centeredness and human tendencies towards evil act by policing especially, the behavioral tendencies among those in position of authority. Thus, virtue ethics presents a more pragmatic ethical framework for moderation of conduct of the public servants and in the discharge of public service delivery.