4 ms·

Why does it blow your mind? Have we learnt nothing about democracy in the last hundred years? Why do we still think modern society has no place for corruption.

Why does it blow your mind? Have we learnt nothing about democracy in the last hundred years? Why do we still think modern society has no place for corruption. I am sure societies two hundred years ago were saying the same thing. In fact I would suggest that technology and the global economy we live in has made corruption more accessible to the masses. The fact is society has always been corrupt. It doesn't matter whether you are living in a democratic, socialist, communist country or dictatorship - there has and always will be corruption. It's human nature. You are never going to stop bad people doing bad things.

Rapzid 12y ago
"Why do we still think modern society has no place for corruption." What do you mean by that? Clearly corruption exists as you pointed out later but "has no place" usually means "unacceptable". I think the reason people believe that is because it's accurate.
davidp 12y ago
Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.
- deanclatworthy 12y ago
  This is the argument I hear every time, and completely glosses over my last sentence. People have been trying successfully for thousands of years to stamp out corruption. It's a part of human nature. In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption. It's not about accepting the practice of corruption, it should of course be punished when proven. It's about accepting that it's human nature. You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. People have been doing these things since the dawn of our existence. I found some interesting reading around this subject [1]. > Earlier Enlightenment-era thinkers looked to society to bring structure and civilization in order to restrain naturally corrupted mankind from chaos. In 'The Confessions', as in his other works, Rousseau takes an opposing view. He asserts that man begins in a pristine, uncorrupted state at birth, and gradually becomes corrupted through the assertion of society upon the individual. The true state of nature, says Rousseau, is uncorrupted Whether you believe society corrupts the uncorrupted human mind, or that humans are born corrupted is up to you. I believe that no matter what, corruption is part of us, and part of being in a society. [1] http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Identity_and_the_Origin_of_Human_Corruption http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Iden...
  - mootothemax 12y ago
    You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. FYI, crime rates including murder and robbery have been falling sharply for the last 20 years: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s...
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      But those things will never go totally away is his point.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - roel_v 12y ago
    Sorry to be that guy, but your argument is totally flawed because it's such a blatant example of the black/white fallacy. The order of magnitude difference in corruption between different countries makes it obvious that it is possible to combat corruption, just as the sharp decline in all sorts of crime across pretty much the whole Western world shows that it is possible to combat other sorts of crime too.
    - deanclatworthy 12y ago
      You say it yourself. The "order of magnitude" is different. It's still present everywhere and always will be. Even places like Iceland, one of the least corrupt societies in the word has corruption: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland Show me a single case of any society having never had corruption.
      - Retra 12y ago
        What you are arguing is either wrong or tautological. What is the relevance of the fact that nobody can get rid of all corruption? How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history? You might as well be arguing that humans can't possibly fly because up until 1903 nobody had. "The Write brothers will surely fail! Show me a single case of anybody having ever flown." Corruption is an extremely difficult problem to combat. But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved? Maybe you should produce an example of some corruption for which there can be no possible manner of correcting. The ease and at which you've adopted this attitude of cynicism and helplessness is not making the world a better place, nor does it provide an example of good decision-making or maturity. It's classic FUD.
- baddox 12y ago
  Recognition of the existence of a thing is not equivalent to approval of the thing.
- mootothemax 12y ago
  Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Here's a page that lists the different levels of access you get for donating to the UK's ruling political party: https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx There are so many ways to give influence via political donations, and the problem is just as you wrote: nobody gives a damn!. I don't know how to solve the problem, any realistic chance of cleaning up politics seems to be an impossible task.
- mahranch 12y ago
  > Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Humans are inherently corrupt. You're never going to have a morally perfect society. It just can't happen. It's like asking the sun not to rise in the morning. Nature is not perfect so humans can't be perfect either. Flaws will appear. Believing that corruption can be stomped out is as naive as believing in Santa Claus. Once you accept corruption, you can work to minimize and mitigate its effects. Which is the goal since you can never, ever eliminate it.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with democracy. Moreover, I don't think that we should be talk about "corruption" as some kind of a moral entity, it's not. What we call "corruption" is just a manifestation of the human nature to be selfish (combined with unability to think beyond scope of one's own person and family, something many people seem to suffer from). As long as what humans want is misaligned with what they can get, there will be corruption. Note that, ironically, humans are so selfish that everything is corrupt, and yet not selfish enough as the economy would like us to be.
- zo1 12y ago
  >"What we call "corruption" is just a manifestation of the human nature to be selfish (combined with unability[sic] to think beyond scope of one's own person and family, something many people seem to suffer from)" Without going into the whole "altruism" vs "egoism" discussion. One simply needs to admit that there is a slight, never-zero skew for individuals to favor self and family over others. Hardly something you could use the word "suffer" for, without injecting your own personal bias into the matter.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    What I refer to in parenthesis seems to me to be more of a cultural phenomenon than anything inherent in human nature (like selfishness is, understood amorally). I've observed that general culture emphasizes well-being of your own kin at the expense of the other people around you. I personally believe this to be a morally lacking attitude, but my own opinion on the morality of this doesn't change whether this has (or has not) an impact on what we call "corruption".

Rapzid 12y ago

"Why do we still think modern society has no place for corruption." What do you mean by that? Clearly corruption exists as you pointed out later but "has no place" usually means "unacceptable". I think the reason people believe that is because it's accurate.

davidp 12y ago

Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

deanclatworthy 12y ago
This is the argument I hear every time, and completely glosses over my last sentence. People have been trying successfully for thousands of years to stamp out corruption. It's a part of human nature. In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption. It's not about accepting the practice of corruption, it should of course be punished when proven. It's about accepting that it's human nature. You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. People have been doing these things since the dawn of our existence. I found some interesting reading around this subject [1]. > Earlier Enlightenment-era thinkers looked to society to bring structure and civilization in order to restrain naturally corrupted mankind from chaos. In 'The Confessions', as in his other works, Rousseau takes an opposing view. He asserts that man begins in a pristine, uncorrupted state at birth, and gradually becomes corrupted through the assertion of society upon the individual. The true state of nature, says Rousseau, is uncorrupted Whether you believe society corrupts the uncorrupted human mind, or that humans are born corrupted is up to you. I believe that no matter what, corruption is part of us, and part of being in a society. [1] http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Identity_and_the_Origin_of_Human_Corruption http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Iden...
- mootothemax 12y ago
  You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. FYI, crime rates including murder and robbery have been falling sharply for the last 20 years: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s...
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    But those things will never go totally away is his point.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- roel_v 12y ago
  Sorry to be that guy, but your argument is totally flawed because it's such a blatant example of the black/white fallacy. The order of magnitude difference in corruption between different countries makes it obvious that it is possible to combat corruption, just as the sharp decline in all sorts of crime across pretty much the whole Western world shows that it is possible to combat other sorts of crime too.
  - deanclatworthy 12y ago
    You say it yourself. The "order of magnitude" is different. It's still present everywhere and always will be. Even places like Iceland, one of the least corrupt societies in the word has corruption: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland Show me a single case of any society having never had corruption.
    - Retra 12y ago
      What you are arguing is either wrong or tautological. What is the relevance of the fact that nobody can get rid of all corruption? How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history? You might as well be arguing that humans can't possibly fly because up until 1903 nobody had. "The Write brothers will surely fail! Show me a single case of anybody having ever flown." Corruption is an extremely difficult problem to combat. But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved? Maybe you should produce an example of some corruption for which there can be no possible manner of correcting. The ease and at which you've adopted this attitude of cynicism and helplessness is not making the world a better place, nor does it provide an example of good decision-making or maturity. It's classic FUD.
baddox 12y ago
Recognition of the existence of a thing is not equivalent to approval of the thing.
mootothemax 12y ago
Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Here's a page that lists the different levels of access you get for donating to the UK's ruling political party: https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx There are so many ways to give influence via political donations, and the problem is just as you wrote: nobody gives a damn!. I don't know how to solve the problem, any realistic chance of cleaning up politics seems to be an impossible task.
mahranch 12y ago
> Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Humans are inherently corrupt. You're never going to have a morally perfect society. It just can't happen. It's like asking the sun not to rise in the morning. Nature is not perfect so humans can't be perfect either. Flaws will appear. Believing that corruption can be stomped out is as naive as believing in Santa Claus. Once you accept corruption, you can work to minimize and mitigate its effects. Which is the goal since you can never, ever eliminate it.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I don't think it has anything to do with democracy. Moreover, I don't think that we should be talk about "corruption" as some kind of a moral entity, it's not. What we call "corruption" is just a manifestation of the human nature to be selfish (combined with unability to think beyond scope of one's own person and family, something many people seem to suffer from). As long as what humans want is misaligned with what they can get, there will be corruption. Note that, ironically, humans are so selfish that everything is corrupt, and yet not selfish enough as the economy would like us to be.

zo1 12y ago
>"What we call "corruption" is just a manifestation of the human nature to be selfish (combined with unability[sic] to think beyond scope of one's own person and family, something many people seem to suffer from)" Without going into the whole "altruism" vs "egoism" discussion. One simply needs to admit that there is a slight, never-zero skew for individuals to favor self and family over others. Hardly something you could use the word "suffer" for, without injecting your own personal bias into the matter.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  What I refer to in parenthesis seems to me to be more of a cultural phenomenon than anything inherent in human nature (like selfishness is, understood amorally). I've observed that general culture emphasizes well-being of your own kin at the expense of the other people around you. I personally believe this to be a morally lacking attitude, but my own opinion on the morality of this doesn't change whether this has (or has not) an impact on what we call "corruption".