Is Corruption a Moral or Legal Issue?

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Corruption has managed to fester its way into society nearly from the start of civilization. Despite its prevalence throughout history, corruption has become increasingly apparent in business corporations, politics and government, and even down to personal interaction.

Is corruption strictly a moral issue and should only be dealt with on a strict moral basis, or should there be legal repercussions as well?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I say there should be legal repercussions to make sure there is less
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
I say there should be legal repercussions to make sure there is less

But wouldn't this require the law to set a moral standard? Who are they to demand a set standard of morality, especially when the government establishing the standard may be corrupt?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The government has to make a lot of moral decisions. Like to end slavery was a moral decision
 

DeletedUser

Guest
it is the nature of humans to be corrupt...

good example:

SwampFox/Charl
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It has been a while since I have frequented this place. I would like to peek in and say a few things.

I think corruption is both, a morale and legal issue to a certain extent. However, I will side with the fact that corruption is more of a morality issue. Citizens like for government to say out of their business as much as possible; although, they still chose to violate laws set forth by government. Over the years, we have noticed a dramatic increase in crime, ranging from the most minor offense to large scale organized crime. What went wrong? Could it be the lack of morals some were taught while being raised?

You may argue the fact that corruption has been around for eons, but how come we continue to see a rise in corruption cases? I don't think law itself could explain that.
 

DeletedUser29066

Guest
I agree wholeheartedly Lane, and I think it stems from lack of discipline in children.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
While the two are definitely not mutually exclusive, I think corruption more often than not goes hand in hand with breaking the law as many definitions of corrupt are based on illicit activities, or circumventing breaking the law with the use of loopholes. Therefore I think that the legal issue is a more important one.

Morality is a much more subjective concept regardless. I don't think you can fight any real-life problem on a strictly moral basis exclusively.
Over the years, we have noticed a dramatic increase in crime, ranging from the most minor offense to large scale organized crime. What went wrong? Could it be the lack of morals some were taught while being raised?
794px-Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Homicide_victimization_by_race.jpg

Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg

murderrate.png
 

DeletedUser

Guest
While the two are definitely not mutually exclusive, I think corruption more often than not goes hand in hand with breaking the law as many definitions of corrupt are based on illicit activities, or circumventing breaking the law with the use of loopholes. Therefore I think that the legal issue is a more important one.

Morality is a much more subjective concept regardless. I don't think you can fight any real-life problem on a strictly moral basis exclusively.
794px-Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Homicide_victimization_by_race.jpg

Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg

murderrate.png

You always make me want to go back in hiding! Leave me alone! :p

I remember why I don't frequent this place. Debating isn't my forte. :D LOL
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Same here but I find this quite interesting.

Morals should be a parents duty to teach to a child, unwritten laws you might say. It can be entirely the parents fault if their kid turns out to be a thief or criminal of some kind. However when they are young, friendship groups must be taken into account. Kids with good morals mixing with those that have no morals. Unfortunately, it is rare you find a kid with good morals and a stronghead, therefore you find that they forget or lose their morals and that is not their parents fault, just saying
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
While the two are definitely not mutually exclusive, I think corruption more often than not goes hand in hand with breaking the law as many definitions of corrupt are based on illicit activities, or circumventing breaking the law with the use of loopholes. Therefore I think that the legal issue is a more important one.

Morality is a much more subjective concept regardless. I don't think you can fight any real-life problem on a strictly moral basis exclusively.
794px-Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Homicide_victimization_by_race.jpg

Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg

murderrate.png

Oh Switzerland
 

DeletedUser

Guest
cor·rup·tion noun \kə-ˈrəp-shən\
: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)

: the act of corrupting someone or something

: something that has been changed from its original form

corruption noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another. Its forms include bribery, extortion, and the misuse of inside information. It exists where there is community indifference or a lack of enforcement policies. In societies with a culture of ritualized gift giving, the line between acceptable and unacceptable gifts is often hard to draw. See also organized crime.

mor·al adjective \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior

: based on what you think is right and good

: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior

1le·gal adjective \ˈlē-gəl\
: of or relating to the law

: based on the law

: allowed by the law or by the rules in a game

Having noted the above I would have to side with moral as morality seems more basic. Morals help determine the start of legality which we set in place. I guess if you consider we had predetermined laws before the onset of people's knowledge of right and wrong then the law would dictate. Well this is really a chicken and egg question isn't it hmmm...
 

DeletedUser37948

Guest
I think there are some problems with this topic that make it quite dificult.

1 morality well being idividual anyway is deserned massivly by wether the individual is an idealist or a realist

2 laws around the world while mostly dirived from roman catholism and english law do vary massivly

personaly im an idealist i feel if you dont aspired to be better moraly then win or lose its a wasted life.

some one mentioned the slave trade

englands early wealth was brought on slavery most politicians of the time were either in slavers pockets or to scared of the monetry implications to act in a morale way
there was as always a minority a small group of activists that worked to end slavery they tried for many years to end slavery to no availe beaten by the money and power the slave trade had
ultimatly if it had not been for a sneeky act of plaiment driven through under the raidar briton would of caried on slaving.

the lure of imorality is massive as it has and always will lead to easy wealth it will always be around its temptation is iternal. it is only by the dedication of the morale minority and the need for social coheasion to for true explotation that the world survives and slowly evolves into somthing better.
goverments are slaves to opinion and only the opinion of the masses can make change unfortunatly the media all to often paints a realist picture today :(
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Whoo, finally some life in this section again :D

I think there are some problems with this topic that make it quite dificult.

1 morality well being idividual anyway is deserned massivly by wether the individual is an idealist or a realist

2 laws around the world while mostly dirived from roman catholism and english law do vary massivly

personaly im an idealist i feel if you dont aspired to be better moraly then win or lose its a wasted life.

I agree that this is a tough topic to discuss. Morality is indeed very dependant on an individuals identity, I don't think it's limited to being an idealist or a realist though, much more will influence a sense of morality. I also don't think you have to be an idealist to have that opinion. I'm a realist myself, an optimistic one at that, but I also believe that you should always try to make the morally correct choices, as impossible as that term may sound.


some one mentioned the slave trade

englands early wealth was brought on slavery most politicians of the time were either in slavers pockets or to scared of the monetry implications to act in a morale way
there was as always a minority a small group of activists that worked to end slavery they tried for many years to end slavery to no availe beaten by the money and power the slave trade had
ultimatly if it had not been for a sneeky act of plaiment driven through under the raidar briton would of caried on slaving.
I think you're making a mistake here in that you're applying modern day morality to an issue from a different time. It's true, slavery helped flourish the Dutch and British economies from the 1600s/1700s but even prior to the financial perks slavery has been a persisting phenomena throughout history. It had been 'normal' for millennia, close to none thought it was a weird thing to own another, inferior human being. Sure, there were a few people, as always, who opposed it, but this is simply the nature of humanity, not something specific to slavery. (much like today people who approve of slavery still exist)
As an idealist you're awfully pessimistic regarding the human race :p I think that, regardless of any piece of legislation, due to the increase of general knowledge and cultural evolution we would have come to the conclusion that all humans are equal on our own.


the lure of imorality is massive as it has and always will lead to easy wealth it will always be around its temptation is iternal. it is only by the dedication of the morale minority and the need for social coheasion to for true explotation that the world survives and slowly evolves into somthing better.
goverments are slaves to opinion and only the opinion of the masses can make change unfortunatly the media all to often paints a realist picture today :(
Again, what's up with the cynicism? :p
You make it sound like I could easily become a millionaire by murdering toddlers. UnFortunately this is not true. I also don't think there is a minority of morally correct people. In fact, I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people always tries to be as righteous as possible, given that only a very small (and as I showed in an earlier post, decreasing) portion of the public breaks the law.

I'm not sure what you mean wit your last sentence. could you elaborate?
 

DeletedUser37948

Guest
well an idealist is quite easy to imagin some one who aspires to greater things, unfortunatly and i fear its my pore explination at fault , there is confusion when i use the term realist i fear.

i use realist as a poler oposite to idealist and this is maybe not the best choice of word to describe what i meen.
so to elaborate.
when ive used the term realist in my mind im refering to a person who is prepared to do whatever is needed to succeed and i set no limmits to depravity.

as for me being pesamistic maybe i am , opinion is subjective but id like to think im honest and that facts support my conclusions.

half the world is super rich the other half in poverty wars rage all over the globe. no one needs to be super rich no one needs to war the ideal would be harmony.
yet even in this elightend age the world is ravaged by the greedy powerfull minority and all manor of alaborate excuses are made to inflict emense suffering on the human race.

lol see that sounds pesimistic but its basicaly a true picture of the negative. to bring balance id say that the morale part of the worlds population works hard to combat this and acts of great kindness and courage can be seen everywhere there is strife.

i think you made a fine point about the morality of a historical time being in context and the norm. its a thing ive considerd often and i wonder how our ira will be judged by our contempories.
i fear badly, worse than slavers of the past while our crimes are not so odvious i think they are far more odious.

the masses are plicated and fat on the whole subdicated by sitcoms, soap, supermakets and ease of life our goverments are stuck in a game that is as twisted as its evil.

war and fear of material shortage prevaile and are activly produced so that a minority can subdigate the majority in modern slavery induced by debt.

capatalism is survival of the fittest and unchecked leads to all the evils in the world, its a great system for inducing motivation but if limmits are not set it produces massive inbalances in wealth and can be imensly corupt

comunism on the otherhand tends to fail at motivating, over regulation does not stimulate developement

imo the real problem is that when you look at the world picture there is one abiding truth people are happy to turn a blind eye to suffering if it is not on there doorstep and they ultimatly benifit from it

I try to do better but fear im as impotent as the majority and grepo is my escape my soap sitcome of choice!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
if your corruption makes you break a law then it's legal otherwise it's moral.....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Corruption has a legal base to it, but I can see how people make the case for it to be a moral issue
 

DeletedUser29066

Guest
Legal Issue? Moral Issue? How about this .... Corruption is WRONG!
 

DeletedUser37948

Guest
coruption is is a negative change to somethings intended use. ultimatly an idividuals choice to choose coruption comes before any coruption happens thefore its an individuals morality that determins wether or not the act happens once that act has happend then it may or may not become a legal matter.

while id love to just say coruption is wrong and egknoledging that ultimatly coruption is a perversion there are circumstances where choices are the lesser of two evils
as the world is not perfect often hard choices have to be made often evil acts can only be diverted by evil acts

war is a fine example both sides kill and killing is wrong but the morality changes when it becomes a kill or be killed situation

both coruption and morality are very complext subjects and so black or white statments dont realy suit this subject matter imo
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think it depends on what they're being corrupt in. For example, if a referee gets bribed out, that's corruption, yet purely moral. If a cop gets bribed out, that's a legal issue.
 
Top