From the landmark work by John Rohr, Ethics for Bureaucrats, the authors seek to take a step in furthering moral readings of the Supreme Court for public administrators. While Rohr and the Constitutional School brought in constitutional case-law study, it doesn’t seem to promote ethical reflection and has little impact on the growing crisis of ethics in public service. The paper posits a more systematic moral reading of constitutional law, developing an empirical, grounded understanding of teleological (utilitarian and virtue) and non-teleological (deontology) moral justifications in contemporary Supreme Court decisions on discrimination in public affairs. An applied plural ethical directionality model is constructed from this grounded, empirical approach to depict the content analysis of Court moral justification rhetoric, the overlapping nature of moral justification types, and cleavages. The contemporary Court usually employs teleological utilitarian moral justifications in its opinion-writing, with non-teleological moral justifications only in some cases of majoritarian injustice. Virtue moral justifications are rarely found–speculated in cases of segregation–and only hinted with litigants of bad character. The applied plural ethical directionality model suggests predictable choices for moral justifications.

摘自约翰·罗尔 (John Rohr) 的里程碑式著作《官僚伦理》，作者试图采取措施进一步推动最高法院对公共行政人员的道德解读。虽然罗尔和宪法学派引入了宪法判例法研究，但它似乎并没有促进道德反思，而且对公共服务中日益严重的道德危机影响不大。这篇论文提出了对宪法的更系统的道德解读，在当代最高法院关于公共事务歧视的决定中，对目的论（功利主义和美德）和非目的论（道义论）的道德理由建立了经验性的、有根据的理解。从这种有根据的经验方法构建了一个应用的多元伦理方向模型来描述法院道德辩护修辞的内容分析，道德辩护类型的重叠性质和分裂。当代法院通常在其意见写作中使用目的论功利主义道德辩护，非目的论道德辩护仅在某些多数主义不公正的情况下使用。很少发现美德的道德理由——在种族隔离的情况下被推测——而且只有品格不良的诉讼当事人才暗示。应用的多元伦理方向性模型为道德辩护提出了可预测的选择。