Hate and corruption are important to examine because they impact both our economy and the foundational cohesion of society. This piece represents a long-running philosophical thought experiment—started over five years ago—intended to explore how corruption affects the economic and social development of society. It also seeks to understand how blatant, unchecked corruption can be addressed in environments where traditional checks and balances may be absent. As a theoretical discussion, it should be taken as a learning exercise—one that emphasizes the importance of strong systems in enabling communities to thrive. There are clear actors for what is right and what is wrong with lots of grey areas in between. Getting through that fog is helpful for understanding and we can do that through a philosophical example for pontification and mental model generation.
Defining the Terms
Hate: A motivating force that fuels disdain for difference and leads to the dehumanization of others. When group-based, hate can result in semi-coordinated harmful behaviors and default responses in underdeveloped systems. Those struggling with fear and deep insecurity often fail to see others as equals—let alone as potentially superior in any way. Hate, therefore, is a weakness rooted in blindness to self-awareness. It restricts the full development of human capital in society by excluding diverse talents and communities, often over relying on a limited pool of people (In our example this appears intentional).
Corruption: The practice of using institutions to benefit friends and in-group members at the expense of fairness and legality. Corruption leads to the suppression of whistleblowers and normalizes unethical behavior, often causing long-term harm to communities. In the worst cases, it results in closed systems where institutions serve low-value interests. This is why societal compasses should be regularly reoriented toward foundational principles—such as the Constitution, human and civil rights, and freedom of speech. In our learning example clear protection for corruption was blantant and victims have no recoures that doesn't include additional aggression and misuse power entrusted to officials for pro-social purposes. Some of these behaviors when mixed with hate could move beyond misbehaviors and into dark corners that should never have been supported (History often looks at these things differently then the biased/time anchored lens by which some judges and decision makers look upon them. The future will likely define the nature of such defaults harshly.)
The Breakdown of Systems
Imagine a situation where individuals are free to act without consequence, despite well-known misbehaviors: putting children at risk, spreading false rumors, exploiting the ill, manipulating courts (willful acceptance of such manipulation in gross negligence) through social connections, engaging in aggression or violence, creating secret hit lists, and enacting public retaliation for things we want people to have the integrity to do. In such a setting, the system is clearly dysfunctional. Victims continue to emerge due to gross negligence and systemic disregard for constitutional purpose.In this scenario, race, religion, political alignment, and social networks determine who is shielded and who is targeted. Trust is expected unconditionally not earned through representation or justice. In this example, the system failed to adapt and some corrupted officials went out of their way to reward in-group members by leaving in tact the same poor actors as community concerns were discarded. Such community concerns were discarded quickly because they didn't align with decision-makers distorted vision of socially constructed value of others. While we may write in a positive ending it wasn't by an inherent urge to do the right thing thereby indicating that judgements were externally driven (externally motivated people) and opening the question of qualifications of capacity to make future decisions when internal alignment of values are not present (Why it is important to remove corrupt officials as well as promote good officials. Most are doing the right thing, a few doing the exceptional, and a few clearly doing the wrong thing).
Now, imagine that those benefiting from unethical behavior are also the ones making decisions about such fundamental sensitive shared values. Supporting or not justice comes down to who is supporting whom. Actions that are clearly illegal and immoral become normalized, encouraged, and protected from criticism—often through suppression of free speech and retaliation against whistleblowers. While the vast majority are doing the right thing and deserve the highest respects, a clan based social network can change the trajectory of good management. It has an impact of the lives of others and is at its root a selfish act that clearly misused resources and power to do wrong.
Implications for Leadership
This thought experiment highlights the critical role of ethical leadership. Research suggests that ethical leadership can significantly reduce Machiavellian behavior among followers. In the theoretical framework presented here, long-term corruption persisted because decision-makers—perhaps justice officials—were driven by hate, prioritized social ties, and allowed their personal biases to override the central values of a just society. The thought experiment continues on because we must learn the difference to ensure systems function in a way that brings the best out of society. Patriotism and faithfulness is comingled with thoughtful development of communities around core shared values despite the risks to those who still believe. In our learning example laws became tools without essential purpose (philosophically). Leading to....
Corruption, Fast or Slow? Ethical Leadership Interacts With Machiavellianism to Influence Intuitive Thinking and Corruption
*This is part of a hypothetical philosophical thought experiment so take with a grain of salt. It is meant for learning purposes and people can have varying positions of corruption and hate.
