Rebuilding Trust: A Philosophical Look at Corruption and Collective Progress

Taking a holistic view of development means creating opportunities where none previously existed. When we look at society as an interconnected system, we see that business activity and social life together shape economic outcomes (Research works off simple measurements/metrics and thus complex relationships are a little harder to measure well. That doesn't mean those connections aren't there and can't be actually measured. The long tail of choices and outcomes. Sorry I digress....) Underlying any economy are core values and assumptions about how people should interact. Some of these values are almost sacred, and when they are intentionally violated, the effects on economic and social development can be significant. That is why a mistake can be improved upon but intentional mistakes fall into a much darker category. They can reach into dehumanization.

Respresenting a philosopher

discussing the importance

of institutional integrity.

Two pieces that seem

sort of interesting. It is more

of a philosophical perspective

vs. a religious one.

"Why do you look at the speck

of sawdust in your brother's eye

and pay no attention to the

plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3)

Judges who alterned their

judgements should

pay a fine and be removed

Law § 5 of the Code of Hammurabi

To explore this, we’ve been using a philosophical, hypothetical thought experiment called The Story of the Clan. In this scenario, an inner group of actors in official and unofficial positions engaged in various forms of misconduct. Their decisions were influenced by self-interest, prejudice, personal gain, and other destructive “isms.” In protecting their own interests, they caused harm and shielded that harm using a clan-based court riff with conflicts of interests. For the sake of the thought experiment, we assume clear judicial misconduct—actions taken to financially reward poor behavior because of social ties and biased assumptions that have historically damaged society. Sometimes those behaviors are allowed to exist without checks and balances (It is not specific to any location.). There should be laws that govern intentional misconduct that are practical for preserving our legacies passed down to us from previous generations.

When misconduct occurs and goes uncorrected, it affects far more than the individuals involved (The more victims the more lasting damage to society. It's a number and impact issue that to see clearly you have to be able to watch its influence over victims lives, social cringing and the lost human capital.😬 Short sighted thinkers shortchange future generations.). It undermines the daily micro-transactions and expectations that depend on shared values. Research consistently shows more often then not that where corruption is high, economic growth is low. Studies also indicate that corruption harms social development and erodes cohesion (Are they necessarily separate or are they part of the same broader metric that can be used highlight potential corruption?). The intent of a third world perspective was clear through the isms lens.

Yet in this story, there was a silver lining. Community members, officers, and officials eventually rallied around their core oaths and professional standards. Unsung heroes of our time. Where people have done that in general, we have often seen growth and development. It is a type of system where positive and detracting factors influence each other. Through these social and economic mechanisms, they helped the community move toward a renewed sense of trust and collective purpose. Society benefited and that also has an impact that is not always easy to measure with simple metrics. Voting one's conscious helps protect against other social contract violators getting back into positions where they can harm others. The higher the position the more important integrity and merit based skill becomes important.

Judicial corruption, however, is uniquely challenging. Systems often contain built-in protections, lack certain levels of transparency (sometimes a good idea sometimes not) and people operate within entrenched narratives (This often happens with too many highly educated/socialized perspectives on the gamemanship of law but not the philosopher's keen eye for a true north.). As a result, intentional wrongdoing can be left for victims to resolve on their own because doing so is easier—or more convenient (Is it really?). The same thinking that created the problem is then allowed to become the solution. Risks can remain if there isn't enough commitment or understanding of institutional purpose (We need more philosophers and theorists in society to balance out decision making. The dangers inherent if certain central liberties are trampled to appease wrongdoing.)

Encouraging decision-making that aligns with shared values is essential for rebuilding trust. In our learning example, the right thing was ultimately done, and trust increased. It serves as a reminder to those we entrust with authority that their decisions must reflect the values we hold in common. They work for the future of our society and the will of the people. Their roles come with the responsibilities of a higher moral conscious and commitment to society's needs over other special interests and considerations (We should care less about their political perversions/persuasions and more about their quality as individuals because that is what counts when choices require thoughtful consideration.). That is their role, their duty, their sacred oath. Society is by its nature an organism of which we all play a part and those we entrust with authority should be the best and brightest as defined by merit in alignment with our values and artifacts (Good idea or bad idea? No judgement!). 

This article really goes into depth on the topic so you can consider browsing it, 

Off the Record-Judiciary Conduct