Is corruption regular from a philosophical perspective?
This is my next installment in the series I promised on the role of self-interest in various spheres of public life.
The purpose of this installment is to explore the causes of corruption from a philosophical perspective.
Of course, one could examine this issue
on a purely abstract philosophical level, without tying it to any specific country—especially since corruption is an international phenomenon that unfolds in nearly the same way in every country. But it seemed to me that it would be more illustrative and useful to examine this phenomenon using the example of a specific country in specific situations—and philosophy will not suffer as a result; it may even benefit. Especially since philosophy is often criticized for being detached from reality. We will try to apply it here to real life. And there will indeed be plenty of philosophy in this topic.
Since the topic has turned out to be quite extensive, I will first briefly outline its main points below. If that is sufficient, we can stop there. However, if you wish to understand how these assertions were arrived at, the full text with supporting evidence is provided below. That corruption, from a philosophical point of view, is a regular phenomenon—why and how?
- In my previous posts, I argued that there is an objective law of human being —the law of personal interest and personal gain—which I expressed with the following formula:
“Most people, in most situations, are guided by personal interest and personal gain.”
Since this law, in the author’s opinion, is objective and applies to all times and peoples, it can be considered philosophical.
-
The quality of human behavior indicated in the formula is determined by the nature of the human organism and stems from the instinct of self-preservation—the most ancient instinct of every living organism—and is therefore objective and irresistible.
-
This law, in turn, determines such a human trait as selfishness, the most extreme negative form of which is aggressive selfishness, characterized by a person’s attempt to maximize their personal interests and benefits, including at the expense of other people and society.
-
Corruption is a manifestation of precisely this aggressive selfishness and, although on varying scales, occurs in absolutely every country in the world.
-
The author attempts to show that, despite the fact that corruption is a direct negative consequence of the law of personal interest and personal benefit, it is precisely this law that can be used to combat it.
-
This paper examines the situation with corruption using the author’s article on the subject—written 30 years ago—as an example, and assesses the accuracy of both the analysis of the situation and the predictions using Ukraine as a case study.
-
At the end, an example of a recent massive corruption scandal in the U.S. is provided, and the author analyzes how, in his opinion, one of the anti-corruption measures he proposed in his article 30 years ago was not taken into account.
So now let’s move on to the main content of this topic.
Of course, when choosing a specific country, it is best to select one where the author currently lives or has lived and has witnessed events unfold before his own eyes. Since I am Ukrainian, I will examine this using Ukraine as an example (though I will also mention the U.S. at the end). Back then, corruption in Ukraine, as they say, was flourishing. These were the formative years of the independent state after 1991, which had only just separated from the Soviet Union. It was precisely then that I wrote an article on this painful topic. To keep things as close to the actual events as possible, I’ll try not to alter the text too much; I’ll only add necessary notes in italics. After all, many years have passed since then. But it will be even more interesting to see whether the predictions I made back then came true.
However, to make the material easier to understand for readers who may not be sufficiently familiar with the specifics of Ukraine, I will have to briefly explain certain points.
In 2013–2014, after then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the EU in protest, a massive rally of Kyiv residents erupted almost spontaneously in the city’s main square—Independence Square (in Ukraine, “maidan” means “square”). After the authorities attempted to violently disperse the rally, mass protests broke out across Ukraine, and on the Maidan, they escalated into violent clashes involving the use of weapons. Following this, President Yanukovych fled the country to Moscow, Russia occupied Crimea and the Donbas, and a restructuring of all government bodies began in Ukraine.
Under the previous government, corruption had reached enormous proportions, which served as a powerful additional motivation for the protests. This was the context behind my article on the topic of corruption.
So let’s finally begin with the text of that old article.
Today, as I listen to numerous socially oriented TV programs—none of which can do without the topic of corruption and the accompanying outrage—I find it hard to hold back the voice that’s bursting from within:
“Why are you wasting your energy and nerves trying to understand the causes and origins of this shameful phenomenon?
Understand once and for all that corruption is not what was sung about in that famous song from the renowned Soviet film “The Investigation Is Led by Experts”:
“If here and there, some people among us sometimes don’t want to live honestly…”
Corruption is inevitable!
And the sooner we realize this, the sooner we’ll move from outrage and hysteria over this issue to conscious and systematic work in the fight against it!!! “
As I’ve already said, one of the main reasons for people’s dissatisfaction with the previous government was rampant corruption, particularly in the highest echelons of power. This included unfair courts, the arbitrary actions of the police, the prosecutor’s office, and the tax authorities, the impunity of the privileged elite, and widespread bribery among officials.
A complete overhaul of the entire government was needed. A new system and new people were needed. Then justice would finally prevail, and corruption would be eradicated. The formation of new government bodies began, a significant portion of which they tried to recruit from Maidan activists
Note. This is exactly where the situation I described in my thread on this forum titled “On Injustice…” begins—when, following the overthrow of the old regime, the victors—both the people and the new government itself—are convinced that everything will now be done fairly and that we will finally defeat corruption
And immediately the age-old question arose: “Will the new ones be better than the old ones?”
It’s no secret that many people who had a negative or passive attitude toward the events
During the Maidan, they explained their position with a simple statement:
“They’re all the same. The old ones stole, the new ones are stealing, and the ones to come will steal too. They’re all lining their own pockets.”
Try to reasonably argue against such a statement. There’s no need to prove that this situation was already evident before the Maidan, during previous changes in power. But even shortly after the Maidan, voices began to claim that the same thing was happening all over again.
That is why I want to say that corruption—no matter how condemned and unacceptable it may be to society—is not exactly a perversion or a deviation, but rather regular a phenomenon! “How so?”—upstanding people will ask. Well, my friends—as sad or even cynical as it may sound—it is precisely ! This is b regular ecause corruption is one of the manifestations of an objective law of human existence, the formula for which reads as follows:
“MOST PEOPLE, IN MOST SITUATIONS, ARE GUIDED BY PERSONAL INTEREST AND PERSONAL BENEFIT.”
Just ten words.
I have named this formula the Law of Personal Interest, or the Law of Personal Gain (abbreviated as LPI)
I realize that I am taking on a huge responsibility—which many will consider audacious—when I assert that the law cited above is: all-encompassing, an objective social law of human existence. And if philosophy is still considered the field of knowledge concerning the most general laws of nature and society, then it follows that this law is also philosophical.
I substantiated the validity of this proposed law in a separate thread titled “An Investigation of the Role of Personal Interest in Human Life” in the Social Philosophy category on this forum. So, anyone interested can refer to that thread. (As for the question of to what extent this formula meets the criteria of a scientific law, I am ready to discuss that separately.) There, I also argued that the phenomenon of the priority of personal interest in human behavior is, in my opinion, a natural human quality, determined in particular by the law of self-preservation. And just recently, I learned that a number of studies in neurobiology are increasingly suggesting that selfish and aggressive traits in human behavior are, to a significant extent, hardwired into the brain from birth—which means that, after all, they are indeed natural. If we take a close look at nature, we’ll see that the law described here also holds true there. Of course, we’ll need to use some different terms, since we’ll be talking not about people but about animals. And it would go something like this: “All animals are always guided by their own personal desires.” And then we’ll recall that predators always eat their prey, and the prey, in turn, also eat someone else. And that is certainly a law of nature. Humans, unlike animals, live in society, are subject to its influence, and bear a certain moral responsibility.
But the very fact of the existence of certain natural impulses can be just as natural and inevitable as phenomena in nature. Here, there are predators and prey almost identical to those in the animal world. Thus, the naturalness of the priority of personal interest gives rise to its objectivity, inevitability, and therefore—invincibility.
After all, we do not take offense at, say, the philosophical law of the unity and struggle of opposites, or the physical law of universal gravitation, nor do we intend to abolish these laws. Where they are useful to us, we apply them; where they are harmful, we find ways to overcome their manifestations. So, there is nothing surprising here. If corruption is a natural consequence of the objective law of personal interest and personal gain, then the main task is not to be outraged by its existence, but to understand its nature and learn to counteract it effectively. However, we must fight not the law of personal gain itself, but its negative consequences.
All corruption is caused precisely by the aforementioned law of personal gain—the human desire to illegally satisfy one’s personal interests at the expense of the interests of other people, society, and the state. And since this law is objective—that is, by definition, independent of people’s will and desires (though this may seem somewhat paradoxical, given that the law directly concerns human consciousness; but that is a matter closer to psychology)—it will hang, like the Sword of Damocles, inevitably over those new people who are now coming to power. And if society comes to recognize this law as a law—objective and scientifically grounded—it will soberly understand that the phenomenon of corruption in government, of officials working not for the people but for themselves, is not so much a random manifestation of the bad qualities of individual unscrupulous people, but rather the inevitable consequence of this objective law.
As I mentioned above, public outrage continues to grow: “What on earth is this? Why can’t we eradicate this shameful phenomenon?” So how can we fight corruption if the law of self-interest—from which it stems—is truly invincible?
And now—pay attention!
We must not fight against the law; on the contrary—alongside the already known and applied methods of combating corruption—we must also use it in this fight. How exactly? The law of personal gain, while being the source of corruption, also contains guidelines on the methods, principles, and rules for protecting against it.
And these methods are contained in the very formula of the Law of Personal Gain.
So, what methods does this law propose? I list them below.
Rule One.
It is not complicated and is contained in the first two words of the Law:
“MOST PEOPLE…” This means that not all people, while serving in the civil service or holding public office, are guided by personal interest. There is also a minority among people—those who, as befits their positions as politicians, civil servants, judges, and so on, place the public interest above their personal interests. And the task of society and its citizens is to seek out, select, and appoint precisely such people—from this minority—to these positions.
Recently, I came across a passage in the Gospel—specifically, the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy—where he expresses his vision of what a bishop should be like.
This would be an excellent filter through which to screen all our elected representatives and officials during elections and appointments. I quote it in part, with some abridgments: “…a bishop must be blameless… sober-minded, sensible, dignified, honest… not quick-tempered, not greedy… peaceable, not a lover of money… He must have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disrepute…”
There aren’t that many people capable of resisting the enormous—albeit unlawful—temptations to get rich, but they do exist. Life provides such examples. And to ensure that precisely these honest, selfless people end up in public office, we, as ordinary citizens, must look very closely at those we vote for in elections. To do this, we must make the effort—sometimes swapping out TV series and entertainment shows for news, political, patriotic, historical, spiritual, and even philosophical programs, books, and publications—so that we have at least some chance to assess who is who, what drives them, and reduce the likelihood of making a mistake. In cases where the issue is not an election but the appointment of officials to positions, it is clear that assessing the honesty and integrity of the appointee depends largely on whether the appointing authority possesses those qualities. Maximum transparency is required for such appointments, and open competitions are essential.
Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to hold competitions for every government position.
But for leadership positions in government agencies, such open competitions are essential. However, even the best selection process cannot completely eliminate the risk of abuse. Therefore, the second essential element is an effective system of oversight. To achieve this, there must be strict, daily, “scathing” public oversight—of appointments, of officials’ work, and even of the overseers themselves. I would propose the following motto for this oversight: “The government is obligated to work for the people, not for itself. As soon as it starts working for itself—it must be decisively ousted!” There are many proposals, bills, and laws regarding such oversight.
This is a separate topic. Political will on the part of the authorities is needed to implement them, along with strict requirements and oversight from society. Because no government can effectively oversee itself. As practice shows, this task should most likely fall to various civic and political organizations, as well as journalists.
So, rule number one:
Among the minority provided for by the LPI—seek out, select, and appoint decent, honest people, choosing them under constant, strict, real, and effective public oversight.
Rule number two.
The next two words of the formula refer to “MOST SITUATIONS” in which a person is guided by personal interest. And this is also a clue. The system must be structured so that there are as few situations as possible that allow an official to take bribes or steal. The measures here are also well-known: minimizing the number of unjustified permits, licenses, certificates, controls, and inspections carried out by officials; ambiguities in laws; non-transparent access to state and public funds; and so on. And where these cannot be entirely avoided, the same principles of maximum transparency and public oversight apply.
And finally,the third rule.
The third part of the Law speaks to the eternal, overriding priority of “PERSONAL INTERESTS” over public interests. Can this be overcome? You can fight the law, but you cannot defeat it. As mentioned above, this is a law of human nature.
But it turns out that it can also be used in the fight against corruption. And the law itself explains how to do this. It is precisely this personal interest that must be leveraged to the fullest extent. The benefits of holding public office must be substantial—even without bribes or corruption—and in this way satisfy the official’s personal interests, needs, and benefits. Working honestly must be profitable and prestigious. On the other hand, the risk of losing these benefits as a result of corrupt actions would be high enough and, if exposed, would result in a complete collapse of their personal interests. What do these benefits (interests) consist of?
– a high salary;
– the opportunity for self-fulfillment and the implementation of projects that benefit society and bring psychological and moral satisfaction;
– the prestige that comes with the position and a high social standing;
– respect from society;
– the fulfillment of personal (yet decent) ambitions;
– pride in your successes shared by your family members, loved ones, and friends—those who elected you—as well as your own;
– the perks of the position (a company car, housing, services, etc.);
– the prospect of a generous pension and a peaceful, secure, and dignified retirement in one’s later years. (This is especially important!) This is probably not the whole list, but it’s certainly no small thing!
This is also a personal interest that can be satisfied without bribes or corruption. Some might object, as Raikina (a Soviet comedian) once said: “Can you imagine how much you’d have to give him so that he wouldn’t take what he could take?”
We can imagine. But, aside from these perks of the position, on the other hand, a person’s temptation to steal should be, to a large extent, deterred by the very grim prospect of being caught for bribery or corruption, being fired, and, ultimately, ending up in prison with their property confiscated. As a result, all the listed benefits of the position are lost. Added to this is the shame—both personal and that brought upon one’s family and social circle. Plus, the prospect of never again in one’s life being elected or appointed to public office. And it would be nice to have a similar prospect of working in respectable private, non-governmental organizations. That’s quite a personal interest! Albeit of a different, opposite nature. But still—it’s a personal interest. (It’s much more interesting and profitable to live in freedom, in prosperity, honor, and respect, than in prison.)
From the above, the conclusion follows: the first part of the incentive must be as profitable as possible. And the second part (the negative incentive) must be as unprofitable and highly probable as possible. But, of course, the risk and probability of detection must be high and real. What does this require? In general, everything is known; we just need to take action. This includes high-quality work by law enforcement agencies, relentless, effective, “sharp” public oversight, and the watchful eye of journalists.
I don’t think that civilized Western countries are familiar with the “law of personal gain” formula I’ve proposed, but I’m confident that the anti-corruption measures used there with greater effectiveness stem from this very same law. There, both elections and appointments have long been significantly more transparent and subject to greater public oversight; there are fewer government oversight bodies, or they are structured more effectively; the non-corrupt benefits of holding public office are substantial; and the likelihood and inevitability of punishment, regardless of the position held, are significantly greater.To sum up, it should be said: there is nothing fundamentally new in any of the measures proposed above. What is fundamentally new is not the proposed measures, but the understanding that corruption is —These are not random shortcomings of individual people, but a natural manifestation of the Law of Self-Interest.
Everyone should know this and understand that it is futile to fight against this law by relying, as the program of the Communist Party of the USSR did, solely on the education of a “new man.” It is invincible. By the way, if we assume that the Bible is not a fiction, and that God will destroy humanity because it cannot rid itself of sin—and these sins are, in essence, almost all a consequence of that very same pursuit of personal gain—then perhaps my assumption that this Law will remain in effect until the end of time is not so bold after all?
So my conclusion is that corruption is inevitable. It is the logical negative consequence of the invincible LAW OF PERSONAL GAIN.
This law must be understood. And it can and should be taken into account and utilized, including in the fight against corruption.
And now for my predictions:
As I noted at the beginning, this article was written in 2014. But even in the years that followed, Ukraine began implementing open, competitive elections and holding open competitions for positions in anti-corruption agencies, law enforcement, and other high-level government bodies. This includes laws on transparency regarding the assets of officials and lawmakers. This also includes expanding the rights of journalists and the public to monitor the activities of officials. It also 9involves a significant reduction in the number of inspections and audits, as well as in the number of these regulatory bodies themselves. Note that this is precisely what was stated in the rules derived from the Law.
Of course, this is not happening because of knowledge of my Law. Society is finding and feeling its way forward on its own. But, forgive me, it’s doing so almost by trial and error. And it has been feeling its way—here in independent Ukraine—for nearly a quarter of a century (now already a third of a century). And what heated debates and struggles over the reasons behind this are taking place! Just imagine if society knew and correctly understood—as objectively as the “Our Father”—if not from school (it would be a shame to disappoint the children), then at least from universities—the law of personal interest and the ways to combat corruption that stem from it. How much faster and more effective the decisions made and their results would be!
And the low effectiveness of the measures being implemented is explained by that very same law:
The personal interest and personal gain of those against whom these measures are directed are still far more powerful than the interest and capabilities of those trying to implement them. Why? The answer is simple: read again about the three ways to fight corruption. These methods are sound, but they are not being used properly.
But my predictions about the invincibility of the law of personal gain have also come true, as have the people’s slogans: “Those who stole before will steal again!”
It seems that even the war in Ukraine only briefly distracted society from the fight against corruption. It already seemed that the thousands of deaths and the immense suffering of the people caused by the war would force corrupt officials to stop plundering the people and the state budget—a state that is fighting not for life, but for death, for its freedom and for justice in society.
But it turned out that the people’s hopes were not fulfilled. Soon after the Maidan and during the war, a number of corruption crimes were exposed, including those involving high-ranking government officials. So the LPI—it works without fail!
Here’s another, very recent example regarding predictions.
I wrote that in developed capitalist countries, the system provides much greater protection against corruption. But just recently, while temporarily living in the U.S., I heard about large-scale (billions of dollars) instances of corruption uncovered in the healthcare and health insurance systems. If this is indeed true, then two conclusions follow:
-the first conclusion: unfortunately, things aren’t all that rosy here either in the fight against corruption, and the law of self-interest is at work; andthe second conclusion: regarding proposals on using the law of self-interest in the fight against corruption. Let’s analyze this situation from the perspective of the aforementioned proposals. The first proposed measure was applied here: ensuring that people have a strong financial and other incentive to work honestly and without corruption in their positions and workplaces. However, it seems that the second measure I proposed—derived from the phrase, “Can you imagine how much we’d have to give them so they wouldn’t take what they could take?”—has been largely overlooked. To which I replied, “We do,” and then continued, quoting:
“The following conclusion follows from the above: the first part of the incentive must be as lucrative as possible. And the second part (the negative incentive) must be as unattractive as possible and highly likely to be enforced. But, of course, the risk and probability of detection must be high and realistic. What does this require? Basically, everything is known—we just need to act. This includes high-quality work by law enforcement agencies, as well as relentless, effective, ‘razor-sharp’ public oversight, and the watchful eye of journalists.”
However, in the example given about the U.S., the focus so far has been mainly on the first measure and has somewhat overlooked the second: “unrelenting, effective, ‘razor-sharp’ oversight.” It was stated that some doctors, in order to increase funding for their private practices, billed for services rendered to “dead souls”—people who had in fact already died. If this is indeed true, then where is the oversight? A simple background check would have exposed the fraud! It seems that the cause here was the authorities’ unreasonably high level of leniency and the hope that people who already earn well and have practically everything they need for a comfortable life would be satisfied with what they’ve achieved.
But, in fairness, I must say that, despite this unfortunate example, I observe that the first measure mentioned above—the strong interest of workers in the corruption-free benefits of honest labor—is, in my opinion, still working to a significant extent here.
Here, by the way, I might also mention my conclusions about communism, which I discussed earlier in the Political Philosophy category. The people mentioned above were no worse off materially than they were under communism: they had everything necessary for a comfortable life, just as communism promised. But, even so, people always feel that something is still missing
In closing, I would like to say: I would like to believe that this article of mine—following those previously published on the forum—continues to illustrate, using the example of corruption, the operation of a philosophical law: the priority of personal interest in human existence. Unfortunately, the examples are negative. There will be other examples to follow—but positive ones as wel l
Note
After rereading the back-translation from English to Ukrainian, I must point out that some of the words and even phrases, when translated into English, change their meaning in some cases. Therefore, readers may encounter misunderstandings in such instances. As a non-native English speaker, it will be difficult for me to make corrections to a post that has already been published. Perhaps I’ll try to do so later.
). When you look around you, you’ll see a statue here, a painting there, etc. Whose dream is it, my dear flying? Couldn’t be yours. Not mine either.