| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Can corruption be justified?
06.15.06, 00:59:06
|
|
|
|
Post #1 (permalink) |
|
|
| |
|
|
This is something I was thinking of earlier today. Charlie Haughey, a former politician here, died this week. He did some great, great thing for this nation. He improved the standard of life for a lot of people and revitalised some areas of the country. This country wouldn't be the same where it not for him.
But although he did a lot of good, he was no stranger to corruption. He took a lot of backhands from wealthy business men and used them to make a more than comfortable lifestyle for himself. That's only the stuff that's known too...who knows what else could have been going on behind closed doors...
My point is this...
Is corruption in politics justified if said politicians actually do some good for their country?
I'd put my opinion of this here, but I'm really undecided at the moment.  Though I'd like to know what all of you think. |
______________________________________
I m a l i a ~ a touch of magic ~
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corruption is an inevitable part of the human experience. As far as I'm concerned a system of government should take into account the fact that it's politicians will be crooked, because everybody's a little crooked. You have to be. That's your basic jungle law, look out for number one because if you don't, the jungle will eat you alive.
So, yes, Corruption, mild corruption is justifiable, and it is also neccessary. If there was no reason to get into politics (kick backs and what not) no one would do it, because there's nothing in it for them. Oh wow, I get to make a third of what I was making ass a CEO and now EVERYBODY hates me. But Corruption also ensures that nothing Horribly horribly wrong ever happens. By this I mean, you get Hitlers. You want to know a really terrifying thing about Hitler. He was a Patriot. He wasn't corrupt. He thought he was doing what was right for Germany. **** no, I'll take someone who's in it for the money any day.
In a word, Yes, A little corruption is justifyable. It's just plain human, and I don't want computers running my life just yet thanks. |
______________________________________
If you have enjoyed this post, or posts like it, please do not hesitate to click on This Link and take a look at my Story. The link is to a page that's already on this forum.
Chaos Lt, twice voted best writer by a pannel of experts (Well alright, the Repubies). Click the link to find out why!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that corruption is omnipresent and is, ultimately, inevitable doesn't justify it Chaos. You're simply saying that because it exists and cannot be removed it is justifiable.
Secondly, although this has nothing to do with the topic, but more with your reply...computers can be "corrupted" 
Anyhow, point is, you're argument isn't, in itself, "justifiable". It's a sophism, where you state that what is "necessary" is "justifiable" (thus is "alright"). It's not. Necessity (closely linked with usefulness) has nothing to do with ethics or morals. Read Kant for more information about that (on how what is good isn't necessarily just (or vice-versa), what is pretty isn't necessarily good, or just, or true, etc.)).
Anyway, I'll edit this post with my take on the topic later on (I've gotta run for now). |
______________________________________
Tötung ist der Kaisers lust
|
|
|
|
|
|
| in many cases, it boils down to a "lesser of two evils" situation. being a politician, it will be impossible to please everyone, so all it comes down to is whether or not you think the ends justify the means. this is of course assuming that they accomplished good things like Charlie did. otherwise, the answer is pretty obvious |
______________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
It still doesn't justify it
Its not because you think that the ends justifies the means that it automatically justifies it. Wether it does or not, there's a 50% chance you're wrong.
At any rate, I believe corruption is unjustifiable, even though its necessary. I'm not saying its "evil", or "bad", but its unjustifiable anyway. It's inevitable, yes, but still. That doesn't justify it. It simply explains why its there, not why it's "just".
"I killed him because of the overpopulation."
Now, lets say this happens in 4000 years, there is WAY too much people and its true that if they don't kill others, the Earth is doomed. They do kill them, its necessary, inevitable, yatti yatti yatta, yet its not justified. Its still murder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Have to agree with CTM here. It happens, but that doesn’t make it just. Although I’d much rather see a corrupt politician in office who actually gave a **** about the welfare of the people than a straight-shooting politician whose goal was to eliminate a sizable chunk of the population (as countless people have described Hitler). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| in that case, it depends entirely on what you're going to choose to look at. if you see it as murder, then yes, it's wrong. if you see it as doing the Earth some good, then it would clearly be a good thing. you see, no one really has the right to actually declare anything just or unjust as if it were an absolute, so when asking "can something be justified" it's more about how that particular person can see it as being just, not so much whether or not it actually is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Chaos said, it is a fact of life. But I don't think it necessarily makes it right.
I'd say it would be justifiable if he was taking said money to fund a beneficial program, but if he's using it for his own luxuries, there is a problem. That's why there is no such thing as voting for political leaders--the politicians will support their financial benefactors before doing what is good for the people.
But as you guys have brought up, there are many heavy two-sided arguments. I think there are certain situations where a person is going to be required to make a very complicated decision; while it may be against their moral code, they are politicians, and as such, should put their moral beliefs/obligations aside and do what will be better for the people in the long-run...unlike a certain American President who bases his political actions off his own personal ideologies...*cough* |
______________________________________
Welcome to The Church of What's Happenin' Now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Quoth Obsidian Tides:
in that case, it depends entirely on what you're going to choose to look at. if you see it as murder, then yes, it's wrong. if you see it as doing the Earth some good, then it would clearly be a good thing. you see, no one really has the right to actually declare anything just or unjust as if it were an absolute, so when asking "can something be justified" it's more about how that particular person can see it as being just, not so much whether or not it actually is.
|
That'd be justifying murder.
"It was right."
"Oh, well, if you say so."
At the same time, you're justifying Hitler (just going with the flow here).
If he the eradication of the jewish people as morally just, then it was ok for him to do so? If I decide that all skin-colored people should die before the superiority of the pale skins does it make me justified in annihilating 3/4 of the Earth's population?
Well then, Aaron, if you wish to view Obsidian Tides' banning as just, please do so. He won't complain, since you thought it was just, he has no right to judge you 
P.S. : Lol, don't take this personal buddy. I don't want to see you ban, its just to prove my point |
|
|
|
|
| |
