We have been exploring a hypothetical philosophical
discussion on hate and corruption and the allowance of such poor behaviors to
protect corrupted networks that encourages mistreatment of others. The example
included so far included 1. Default in Systems designed to protect the public,
2.) Dehumanization of targets and targeting and 3.) Acceptance of societal position based on superficial characteristics (not based in merit, history or true patriotism). The example is meant to explore the worst-case scenario so
we can build a model on how hate and corruption works in modern life. Maybe find a few ways to avoid if needed in the future.
The background is that a local group called "The Clan" are
represented and embedded into local institutions. It is well known that that
certain members of the socially connected clan are protected throughout the system including the
courts (i.e. serving a homogeneous conception "local" versus the intent of law. Also an indication of why partisanship should not be encouraged among judges.). Those who complain or encourage integrity are put on target lists while any
investigation into perpetrators is blocked (information on formal complaints intentionally shared). Retaliation, threats of violence, and
aggression against whistleblowers are common. Multitudes of victims including
rape victims (the lost suicide note rumor), sexually exploited women (shallow displays of manhood common indicating a cultural problem), out-group
members (typically minorities), financially exploited, mistreatment/exploitation
of vets (respect for oaths and Constitution is low), etc. have come forward and subsequently ignored.
What makes this philosophical example interesting is that there are no checks and balances
and despite the many complaints and the breaking of social contracts there
appears to be an intent to ensure no positive change that will protect the
public is created. No reversals of corrupted decision making, no true
investigations, and no intent on strengthening declining trust in the
institution. The clan decision makers (the people we don’t want serving the
public) and their self-interested ideologies seem to be undermining the institution
at the expense of society but also at the expense of the majority of good men/women
who faithfully serve the public with integrity (the people we want serving the
public).
The approach that those who are trying to ensure the systems work well used
human rights violations as one framework for understanding corruption. However,
words like human rights and civil rights are openly mocked within clan circles
and officials. Due to extreme ideologies of hate let us pretend there will
never be an objective investigation into misbehaviors and continued
victimization of people will continue forward into the foreseeable future (at
least until the corruption can't be denied. An indication of intentionally poor decision making that harmed the public and could have saved victims). This is where people may see different purposes within the same system. A strong and functional system creates an environment where society can flourish
(i.e. in this example there was 20 years of econonomc decline that mirrors the clan rise to power. A reversal occured around the same time that corruption was being exposed. Sheds light on the idea that corruption costs society much but isn't fully calculated. Human capital management discussion is going to come forward at some point and how corruption and hate impact that.)
The study discusses human rights as an avenue of challenging corruption. I'm
not so sure it would be a good approach and in this hypothetical example human
and civil rights are not seen within as having any particular
value (other indications of undermining freedomod speach and religion). Thus, one might not want to use it as a full strategy to deal with
openly protected misbehaviors. Moral conscious appears to be very low and in
this example many of the decision makers have already made compromises that
allowed a clan based corrupted network to warp outcomes. Thus, human
rights/civil rights frameworks are not going to morally move the needle alone if
that moral conscious is not a trait fully developed in decision makers inventory
of values. Where values, the law, and
the intent of the law are not in alignment there must be another way. Time
answers all questions. In this hypothetical example we are going to write a positive ending where the system learns to correct itself based on the highest standards of justice passed from one generation to the next.
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." Albert Einstein
*This is a hypothetical philosophical example for learning purposes so take with a grain of salt. Such things are unlikely to happen in real life. Human rights and corruption: Problems and potential of individualizing a systemic problemAnne Peters, Human rights and corruption: Problems and potential of individualizing a systemic problem, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 22, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 538–561, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moae038