Suppose one of your close friends, who is also aspiring for civil services, comes to you for discussing some of the issues related to ethical conduct in public service. He raises the following points: (i) In the present times, when unethical environment is quite prevalent, individual attempts to stick to ethical principles may cause a lot of problems in one’s career. It may also cause hardship to the family members as well as risk to one’s life. Why should we not be pragmatic and follow the path of least resistance, and be happy with doing whatever good we can? (ii) When so many people are adopting wrong means and are grossly harming the system, what difference would it make if only a small minority tries to be ethical? They are going to be rather ineffective and are bound to get frustrated. (iii) If we become fussy about ethical considerations, will it not hamper the economic progress of our country? After all, in the present age of high competition, we cannot afford to be left behind in the race of development. (iv) It is understandable that we should not get involved in grossly unethical practices, but giving and accepting small gratifications and doing small favours increases everybody’s motivation. It also makes the system more efficient. What is wrong in adopting such practices? Critically analyze the above viewpoints. On the basis of this analysis, what will be your advice to your friend?

The case revolves around the issues of ethical integrity, consequentialism, public trust, corruption, and the role of individual morality in governance.

Critical Analysis of the Viewpoints (i) Ethics vs Pragmatism: While ethical conduct may involve personal costs, public service is fundamentally a trust-based institution. Choosing the "path of least resistance" normalizes wrongdoing and gradually erodes integrity. Ethical behaviour may create short-term hardships but ensures longterm credibility, self-respect, and institutional trust. As Mahatma Gandhi observed, means are as important as ends. (ii) Individual Ethics is Ineffective: This argument overlooks the transformative role of individuals in society. Ethical governance often begins with a few committed individuals. Historical figures such as Lal Bahadur Shastri and T. N. Seshan demonstrate how principled individuals can reform systems.

Ethical conduct inspires others and creates positive institutional culture. As Gandhiji observed, you be the change you wish to see in this world. (iii) Ethics Hampers Development: Sustainable development requires ethical foundations. Corruption, nepotism, and regulatory capture distort markets, discourage investment, and increase transaction costs. Countries with high levels of integrity (Singapore, South Korea) generally enjoy better economic performance and stronger institutions. Therefore, ethics and development are complementary rather than contradictory. (iv) Small Gratifications Improve Efficiency: Small favours and gratifications may appear harmless, but they violate fairness and equality. Such practices gradually but certainly institutionalize corruption and create expectations of preferential treatment. What begins as a minor compromise often evolves into systemic corruption.

Advice to my Friend: I would advise my friend that ethics should not be viewed as an obstacle but as the foundation of public service. A civil servant's legitimacy flows from integrity, impartiality, and commitment to public welfare. While ethical conduct may sometimes involve personal sacrifice, it strengthens institutions, promotes public trust, and contributes to sustainable development. One may not change the entire system alone, but one can ensure that the system does not change one's character.

Ethics may not always be the easiest path, but it is the most enduring one.