行政人員等公共管理者，不僅影響政治體系的運作與重要議題的排序，無疑是在政府行政運作與公共政策過程中扮演著關鍵性的角色，而成為「行政國守衛者」（the guardians of the administrative state）。然而，如同英國公爵Lord Acton (1887)所指陳之「權力導致腐敗，絕對的權力導致絕對的腐敗」，行政人員在代行行政權力、運用與分配公共資源與提供公共服務之際，是否善盡其管理職責、規劃社會利益和社會負擔的合理分配、有效回應社會價值偏好與人民信任，而體現行政的公共性，成為全球公共治理的重要議題。
也因此，如同古希臘哲人Aristotle「誰來監督護國衛士？」(Who guards the guardians)的疑問，行政部門需要採取哪些措施？如何建立或改革哪些內在、外在控制的機制？這些都不是憑空所能形成，也非輕易即能維持下去，而有賴於公共參與、法律制度規範、整合的組織結構與相關政策的落實，方能建立杜絕貪腐與濫權的廉能政府。
本門課程的目標，即在於協助同學認識與討論公共行政所面對之多元價值的分歧與衝突，進而討論行政倫理的意涵、不同層次的倫理範疇、對公共行政行為的影響與制約作用，以及如何規範與組織制度相聯繫的倫理原則和行為準則，期能促使同學進一步深入理解、自覺與培養對行政倫理的信念。
Public managers such as administrators not only influence the operation of the political system and the ranking of important issues, but undoubtedly play a key role in the government's administrative operations and public policy processes, becoming the "guardians of the administrative state". administrative state). However, as the British Duke Lord Acton (1887) pointed out, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Whether administrators are doing their best when exercising administrative power, using and allocating public resources, and providing public services. Its management responsibilities, planning the reasonable distribution of social benefits and social burdens, effectively responding to social value preferences and people's trust, and reflecting the public nature of administration have become important issues in global public governance.
Therefore, as the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle asked, "Who guards the guardians?", what measures do the administrative departments need to take? How to establish or reform internal and external control mechanisms? These cannot be formed out of thin air, nor can they be maintained easily. They rely on public participation, legal system regulations, integrated organizational structures and the implementation of relevant policies to establish a clean and capable government that eliminates corruption and abuse of power.
The goal of this course is to help students understand and discuss the differences and conflicts of multiple values faced by public administration, and then discuss the meaning of administrative ethics, different levels of ethical categories, and the impact and constraints on public administrative behavior. And how to standardize the ethical principles and codes of conduct related to the organizational system, hoping to promote students to further understand, become conscious and cultivate their belief in administrative ethics.
余致力（編），2011，《廉政與治理》。北市：智勝。
許立一，2003，〈黑堡宣言產生的系絡及其與新公共行政的關係〉，《空大學訊》308：72-85。
許立一，2003，〈新公共行政的再現與新詮-黑堡宣言的主張（上、下）〉，《空大學訊》312：121-126、《空大學訊》313：87-94。
許立一，2003，《慎思熟慮的民主行政》。北市：韋伯。
許立一、張世杰，2011，《公務倫理》。新北市：國立空中大學。
陳敦源 、蔡秀涓，2006，〈國家發展的倫理基礎：反貪腐與公職人員倫理準則〉，《臺灣民主季刊》3(3)：185-200。
施能傑，2004，〈公共服務倫理的理論架構規範作法〉，《政治科學論叢》20：103-140。
葉尉鑫，2006，〈行政倫理與行政裁量對公務人員重要性之初探〉，《T & D 飛訊》52：1-12。
黃朝盟、陳坤發，2009，〈公務人員的行政倫理觀：台灣縣市政府行政菁英意見調查分析〉，《政治科學論叢》16：119-136。
詹靜芬，2010，〈基層文官的倫理困境：依法行政下的難題〉，《T & D 飛訊》96：1-20。
蔡明華，2011，〈公務人員人格發展與公共服務〉，《文官制度季刊》3(1) ：93-115。
蔡秀娟，2011，〈行政院組織改造對公務人員角色之改變與意義公務人員角色〉，《T & D飛訊》130。
蔡秀涓、陳敦源，2013，〈實踐公務員倫理法制的範圍與方法：國際趨勢與臺灣現況〉，《文官制度季刊》5(4)：1-48。
關中，2010，〈行政倫理的重要議題：從保護弊端揭發者談起〉，「公益揭發(揭弊)保護學術與實務研討會」。盧建旭，2009，〈公務倫理：整合公共治理的概念〉，《文官制度季刊》考試院八十周年慶特刊：39-53。
許濱松、余致力、金士先、吳秦雯，2011，〈公務員利益迴避〉，《廉政與治理》第4章(智勝)。
蕭武桐，2002，《公務倫理》。北市：智勝。
法務部，2004，〈美國檢核長及政府倫理局制度考察報告〉。取自法務部http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=128187&ctNode=28061&mp=001。
法務部，2008，〈日本「國家公務員倫理法」〉與〈日本「國家公務員倫理規程」〉。取自法務部http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=128006&ctNode=28061&mp=001
法務部，2010，〈公務員廉政倫理規範〉。取自法務部http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=258544&ctNode=28058&mp=001
Yu Zhili (ed.), 2011, "Integrity and Governance". Beishi: Zhisheng.
Xu Liyi, 2003, "The relationship between the Blacksburg Declaration and the new public administration", "Kong University News" 308: 72-85.
Xu Liyi, 2003, "Reappearance and New Interpretation of New Public Administration - The Advocacy of the Blacksburg Declaration (Part 1 and 2)", "Kong University News" 312: 121-126, "Kong University News" 313: 87-94.
Xu Liyi, 2003, "Deliberate Democratic Administration". North City: Weber.
Xu Liyi, Zhang Shijie, 2011, "Public Service Ethics". New Taipei City: National Hangzhou University.
Chen Dunyuan and Cai Xiujuan, 2006, "The Ethical Foundation of National Development: Anti-corruption and the Ethical Code of Public Officials", "Taiwan Democracy Quarterly" 3(3): 185-200.
Shi Nengjie, 2004, "Theoretical Framework and Normative Practice of Public Service Ethics", "Political Science Series" 20: 103-140.
Ye Weixin, 2006, "A preliminary study on the importance of administrative ethics and administrative discretion to public servants", "T & D Feixun" 52: 1-12.
Huang Chaomeng and Chen Kunfa, 2009, "Administrative Ethics of Public Servants: Survey and Analysis of Opinions of Administrative Elites of County and Municipal Governments in Taiwan", "Political Science Forum" 16: 119-136.
Zhan Jingfen, 2010, "Ethical dilemmas of grassroots civil servants: Difficulties in administration according to law", "T & D Feixun" 96: 1-20.
Cai Minghua, 2011, "Personality Development and Public Service of Public Servants", Civil Service Quarterly 3(1): 93-115.
Cai Xiujuan, 2011, "Changes and Significance of the Role of Civil Servants as a result of the Organizational Reform of the Executive Yuan", "T & D Feixun" 130.
Cai Xiujuan and Chen Dunyuan, 2013, "The Scope and Methods of Practicing Civil Service Ethics and Legal System: International Trends and Current Situation in Taiwan", Civil Service Quarterly 5(4): 1-48.
Guan Zhong, 2010, "Important Issues in Administrative Ethics: Starting from the Protection of Whistleblowers", "Academic and Practical Seminar on the Protection of Public Welfare Whistleblowers". Lu Jianxu, 2009, "Public Service Ethics: Integrating the Concept of Public Governance", "Civil Service Quarterly" 80th Anniversary Special Issue of the Examination Yuan: 39-53.
Xu Binsong, Yu Zhili, Jin Shixian, and Wu Qinwen, 2011, "Avoidance of Civil Servants' Interests", Chapter 4 (Outsmarting) of "Integrity and Governance".
Xiao Wutong, 2002, "Public Service Ethics". Beishi: Zhisheng.
Department of Justice, 2004, "Inspection Report on the U.S. Inspector General and Bureau of Government Ethics Systems". Retrieved from Ministry of Justice http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=128187&ctNode=28061&mp=001.
Ministry of Justice, 2008, "Japan's National Civil Servant Ethics Law" and "Japan's National Civil Servant Ethics Regulations". Retrieved from the Ministry of Justice http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=128006&ctNode=28061&mp=001
Ministry of Justice, 2010, "Ethical Code of Integrity for Civil Servants". Retrieved from the Ministry of Justice http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=258544&ctNode=28058&mp=001
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 出席上課、發問、參與討論與臨時課堂測驗出席上課、發問、參與討論與臨時課堂測驗 Attend class, ask questions, participate in discussions and impromptu class tests |
40 | |
| 期中分組報告與討論期中分組報告與討論 Midterm group report and discussion |
30 | |
| 期末測驗期末測驗 final exam |
30 |
