Let us examine a learning story on the persistence of corruption and hate, and why these outcomes continue even when they are widely recognized. Numerous studies show that certain environmental and institutional conditions can normalize such behavior—not only within groups, but also among those in decision-making positions. When social contracts and shared civic values are subordinated to self-interest and entrenched “good old boy” networks, accountability weakens. The critical question becomes: what happens when a system loses its ability—or willingness—to correct itself?
 |
Representing the average person
and their belief in something
greater. |
The “story of the clan” serves as a theoretical learning thought experiment framework that illustrates this breakdown. In this scenario, a group targets minorities, individuals and at times good people who expect basic dignity and fairness. Multiple people come forward with complaints, yet most are ignored or deliberately sidelined. When individuals approach the truth too closely, they are often singled out for retaliation and placed on informal lists for future targeting (formal and coordinated informal groups). Vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, sexual assault victims, and those with a record of speaking accurately and consistently—are intentionally harmed. Because of a dehumanizing effect they do not see what they are doing as wrong.
Within this framework, laws are applied subjectively and arbitrarily, particularly against those labeled as outsiders or "undesirables" by a cool crowd and their associated corrupted officials. In the short term, the impact is clear: victims find they have little to no avenue for redress. Officials caught engaging in misconduct receive preferential treatment; investigations are delayed or blocked, and institutional mechanisms shield them from meaningful consequences (This is in contrast to the vast majority of good officials doing the right thing and turned the tide against corruption and hate. They have an impact on protecting and serving their communities in a positive way). Without the good men and women who challenged some aspects of corruption all would have been lost through hueristic and deeply biased thinking.
There is room for improvement......
The long-term effects are more damaging. Public trust erodes, social concerns deepen, and hostility toward out-groups increases as rhetoric increases (Some research shows that as rhetoric rises so does harm as it is a type of projection. Not of particular concern of those undermining the system). At the same time, awareness grows that reform is necessary—that protections and checks-n-balances must be strengthened so that commitments to social contracts are much more than symbolic gestures. Communities that challenge corruption and hate tend to experience improved social cohesion and economic development, while those that tolerate or protect such behavior often undermine their own stability and growth (You can read history and science and it will generally indicate that corruption and hate often brings low economic performance.).
What, then, should be done when wrongdoing is well known and there is a lack of commitment to social contracts or good and moral use of the law? The answer, however difficult, is persistence. The moral obligation to protect the next, more diverse generation outweighs the convenience of shielding misconduct simply because it is politically or socially tolerated within certain networks (History has shown that open bias in the courts can lead to much bigger problems in the future on a collective level If it matches with other data it is a big concern. It also limits the free exchange of ideas and that limits society's ability to adapt upward.). People who stand up and swear oaths to certain values everyday must believe in those things and not allow them to be watered down (Give honor and praise to those people and officials who walk the talk in values).
In this learning example, decision-makers feel little moral responsibility for the harm caused. The mechanisms for correction are not often used and they seem to be designed as inadequate. They know it is there but feel that the cost would be too high so they fail to correct or put in place meaningful checks-and-balances. Commitments to justice become performative, and loyalty rituals replace accountability. This represents not an accident, but a set of unwritten rules designed to serve some members of society exclusively. Yet the next generation deserves fair treatment, genuine opportunity, and institutions that function a their higest state possible. As more victims come forward neglect of duty and serving the public becomes apparent.
This thought experiment reminds us that systemic failures do not occur in isolation. Despite pressures to silence victims or normalize the unacceptable, the responsibility remains to build the best society possible: to follow the law (not unwritten clan laws or unexamined application of hate or corruption), to treat others with dignity, and to insist that institutions serve their true purpose—not convenience, personal reward, or internal loyalty, but the people they were created to serve and the future they are meant to protect. Where systems fail people must still believe and do their best to right the wrong and treat all our youth and people and their futures as having value (not just the ones symbolically seen as worthy. ). Great societies are built by commitment and failing to correct is a sign of that lack of commitment and when commitment is lacking trust declines so let us reverse that.
*This is a thought experiment to explore a deep concept so feel free to change around the elements and come to whatever conclusion you desire.
