Some planners limit discussions on ethics relatively simple. They make questions about the propriety of their daily activities. For example, a scenario from a government-training program in which government employees ask if it is proper to use public funds for their cloth clean while on a business trip. After discussion, participants in the training program agree that it is ethically proper to charge the cleaning bill to the government if the clothing soiled in the course of government business. But it needs prior approval from supervisor (Rohr, 1978).

This approach, which John Rohr called an “office boy mentality.” This would restrict discussion of professional ethics to the propriety of everyday social and professional relationships. It would ignore the broader ethical content of planning practice, methods, and policies. Narrow definitions of ethical behavior can easily preoccupy public officials and professional associations. They divert attention from more profound moral issues.

In fact, ethical issues implicit in nearly all-planning decisions. They confront planners in many guises. For exploratory and pedagogic reasons it is useful. However, it divide ethics in planning into four distinct categories. The first category, illustrates by the example above. Also includes the moral implications of bureaucratic practices and rules of behavior regarding clients and supervisors. Second category pronounces on ethical judgements which planners make in exercising their “administrative discretion.” The authority make decisions affecting private behavior and property on behalf of the public welfare. More complex, and represented by the third category. The moral implications of methods and the ethical content of criteria built into planning techniques and models. Benefit-cost analysis and computer simulation models present examples of planning tools containing.