One might argue that societies in general should run as efficiently and smoothly as possible, grounded in shared norms that are often codified in charters, mission statements, constitutions, oaths, and similar guiding documents/statements. Despite these formal commitments and the professions that uphold them, there are times when norms are overturned for immoral reasons such as the tempting advantages of hate and corruption. The unwritten norms within certain circles may be one of the major reasons corruption can continue unchecked for years—despite widespread awareness of its existence, the harm it inflicts on society, and the victims it creates (You can never undo the harm of some's choices but you can try and protect others through positive persistence and norm setting. Intentionally harming others for bigotries and money while incentivising at their root wrongdoing and illegal behaviors is a value statement. Their exclusive values create risks for everyone else even if they don't admit it; they know deep down and that is why it is done. Intentional coordinated harm isn't an accident.). These informal rules essentially establish different standards for different people by giving rights to target and harm to gain while reducing human, civil, and the right to exist free (In some societies these are essential and underwrite every other law. Encouraging a higher standard often comes with risks for those who want to uphold the right thing and carry on our grandparents, great grandparents and great great grandparents values that are essential for societal long-term health. People must preserve and support what is sacred or they could someday be lost. You do that by thinking about them and encouraging others to think about them. Normalizing corruption and hate in one place or group means it could be normalized to others (It is not specific to any race, religion, politic or other.)
 |
Representing reflecting
positive norms and
are standing indivisible
against corruption and hate.
|
As we explore this hypothetical, philosophical, and theoretical learning thought experiment focused on a “complete justice default,” we examine the unwritten norms that allow hate and corruption to persist regardless of the damage they cause to so many others. In some cases openly bragging about corruption and actively incentivizing misbehaviors. Legal processes and institutional backstops can themselves become distorted into games that drift away from shared values and collective purpose (An issue with too many attorneys as lawmakers and not enough philosophers. The argument is philosophers are more concerned with the direction of laws but step over the details while attorney's focus on detailed gamemanship of law but neglect their purpose and direction. A balance is helpful for staying true north.). Yet eventually, perpetrators overreach—they make mistakes, act too aggressively, exceed their authority, create too many victims, openly support criminal behaviors or rely on clan-like justice. Their actions are challenged by a communities that want the best for themselves, for others, and for future generations (Remember that in our example there was clear preferences to encourage wrongdoing and foster further harm through misuse of a process to engaged in all types of behaviors that undermine trust and undermine the beneficial work good people and officials do everyday. Good officials, communities and people are the loosers when clan courts run by social networks and bigotries normalize misbehaviors.).
In these scenarios, the unwritten norms used by such groups to shield wrongdoing can become more powerful than the law or the intent behind the law. Individuals who revel in violating the freedoms of others—and who enrich friends and associates through ideological distortions unjustly projected onto victims—are unlikely to stop for moral reasons alone. It is not like you can just say over a cold one, "Hi, could you change your behavior and not project and exploit?" and they will reply, "Ok buddy, your right I should treat people like I would want to be treated." (Wouldn't it be nice if it was that simple?🥰 🤗) That is why checks and balances are essential: to ensure that such people and/or networks do not undermine the fundamental purposes and social contracts of society. “Quick to harm and slow to correct” is not a motto that should be fostered as it is reflective of indicision on justice's purpose and role.
Here is the good news: the vast majority of people genuinely try to do the right thing. Mistakes happen, and accidental errors are very different from intentional harm. Good officials, good officers, good citizens, good politicians and other pro-social actors understand the importance of aligning unwritten norms to the more official ones. Witnesses, whistleblowers, and victims play crucial roles in this process; they help society recognize, confront, and correct wrongdoing. We do not need rigid or distorted ideologies to understand the difference between right and wrong. The faster we recognize we are in the same ship together and can get people rowing in the same direction, the more competitive that ship becomes (It's common sense. Think of the meaning of common and sense.).
With persistence, corruption and hate can be reversed but only if others find it disdainful and unwanted. Those who feel entitled to act without accountability will be unlikely to feel good about change that helps everyone, but change occurs when new expectations and new norms take hold. If we, as a society, insist that those we entrust with authority must uphold the values we believe in, have sacrificed for, and have codified into law, then we can reduce corruption and hate (In reverse we must also reward and support those officers, officials, politicians, people, etc. who foster prosocial behaviors and remove wisely those who cause harm and undermine trust.) If harmful unwritten norms take root instead, problems multiply (If you read history you will understand why it is important to do the right thing on a deeply woven social exchange level. You can't fake it and skipping over it leads to increasing concerns of society that reduce institutional health and trust. To some not that important. ). Improving expectations—and therefore trust—requires addressing corruption when it surfaces, correcting wrongdoing when it occurs, and reinforcing positive values in ourselves and in our leaders. In history people have compromised and done the opposite as well. So far most are doing the right thing but not everyone.
Consider this piece, which discusses how corruption thrives on norms and how reshaping expectations can reduce it (See prior article on unwinding hate and corruption.). In our thought experiment, hate and corruption are intertwined through patterns of thinking and a lack of empathy where people are entitled to institutional resources and outcomes (i.e. consideration for others and society). While we can't change people's personality we can create the norms, create the checks-and-balances, and encourage the best and brightest to come forward to take their place in history; or not. 🤷♂️🤷♀️We can also watch generations of hard work and sacrifices trip and fall. The choice is entirely ours and the answer to this philosophical question is in each of us.
How Norms Upstage the Law in Corruption
*As a philsophical exercise you can change around the elements, come to different conclusions, etc. It is for discussion purposes.
