Corruption and Human Nature

[Ibn_Sina]

First and foremost, before I pose my question, I must admit that my knowledge in philosophical matters is very limited. Thus, if I sound simplistic, please excuse me. I would also appreciate if you could answer me in a simplistic manner.



Okay, when I was reading about frequent military coups and economic situation in West Africa, I have come across two theories. Before I go to those theories, I will explain one relevant term. State weakness can mean many things but in this case, state weakness is a state's inability to address the needs of most of its citizens.


Theory 1: state weakness leads to corruption.

Theory 2: corruption leads to state weakness.


Theorists such as Patrick McGowan proposes Theory 1 while most modern theorists and economists (including IMF) propose Theory 2. In relation to Theory 2, my question to other fellow students was, from where does corruption originate? If corruption leads to state weakness, it had to originate from some where or because of some reason?

Their response was "human nature is corrupt" and that is why Theory 2 makes sense. However, my question is, how can we make such assumptions on human nature? Surely, humans (politicians to be more specific) do not live outside society. I would say its scarcity of goods that plausibly makes human corrupt. There is more scarcity in West African nations, so there is more corruption. There is less scarcity in Western Europe, so there is less corruption. So we go back to Theory 1. Scarcity exists because the state is weak and unable to provide for its citizens.

As for human nature, surely every human wants to ensure its survival in every situation? Surely all normal humans dislike physical pain? It doesn't matter whether he/she is a businessman or spent his/her entire life in a jungle. It is his/her interaction with the external environment and experiences that shape his/her nature. Thus, a human being might be corrupt and brutal when experiencing a Hobbsean sense of scarcity, but can also be peaceful while living in a Lockean sense of abundance of goods. I don't know how right I am, that's why I am seeking assistance from yourselves.

[FaeNixx]

It's not scarcity of goods, in my opinion, but greed and the pursuit of power, and the fear of losing that power once we have achieved it. I disagree that there is less corruption in European nations, for example the recent controversy about the British Labour government not declaring party donations. If true, that's corruption of sorts.

Leaders and politicians, who represent the state, are more susceptible to corruption out of a desire to maintain their control.

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: FaeNixx It's not scarcity of goods, in my opinion, but greed and the pursuit of power, and the fear of losing that power once we have achieved it. I disagree that there is less corruption in European nations, for example the recent controversy about the British Labour government not declaring party donations. If true, that's corruption of sorts. Leaders and politicians, who represent the state, are more susceptible to corruption out of a desire to maintain their control.

Well in developed countries, corruption does not lead to state weakness like it does in Africa. Self-enrichment is far less than what happens in developing and underdeveloped states.

[krisma1]

The realist theory stating that "human nature is corrupt" seems like a simple way to explain any difficulty within the boundaries of a state; however, I believe the theory is flawed. I tend to side with the liberal view that humans are innately good. People (in general) are born with a desire for peace, stability, and happiness. Whenever we cannot obtain these things it leads to corruption. (Theory #1)

In WWII Germany the weakness
of the state lead to the rise of the Nazi party, who promised to return prosperity to the country.

After the events of September 11th, America needed a leader to help them through it. When the Bush Regime decided to invade Iraq, few questions were asked due to the fragility of the state.

When the state is weak, it turns to corruption as its savior.

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: krisma1 The realist theory stating that "human nature is corrupt" seems like a simple way to explain any difficulty within the boundaries of a state; however, I believe the theory is flawed. I tend to side with the liberal view that humans are innately good. People (in general) are born with a desire for peace, stability, and happiness. Whenever we cannot obtain these things it leads to corruption. (Theory #1) In WWII Germany the weakness of the state lead to the rise of the Nazi party, who promised to return prosperity to the country. After the events of September 11th, America needed a leader to help them through it. When the Bush Regime decided to invade Iraq, few questions were asked due to the fragility of the state. When the state is weak, it turns to corruption as its savior.

I have been a fan of the realist theory. It has been true is most cases whether it's philosophically flawed or not.

But I agree with you. State weakness leads to corruption.

[Ibn_Sina]

But tell me one thing, is the realist theory normative or descriptive?

[krisma1]

It seems as though it would depend on the political theorist. From what I've read I'd say most realists would argue that its descriptive, claiming that "we are innately evil". They then use normative claims to express what can/should be done about this.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I agree with both sides, and It think it usually ends up in a self fulfilling spiral. And, yes, I can and will make imperical statements about human nature, We've had thousands of years of history to see what humans are like, and I think it's fair to say we are corrupt. Even if it's not fair, I'm arrogant enought to say it anyway.

[krisma1]

I don't believe anyone is debating against the fact that people are corrupt. Its clear corruption exists. The two theorists just have different ideas as to where it originates. Hobbes centers his beliefs on the presumption that nature determines one's character, while Locke believes that this is determined by nurture.

[Kuldeep]

Defintely, both nature and nuture are responsible for the final result that is corruption.

As long as origin is concerned, it is defintely the nature. This so because nuture is outcome of people's nature only. The basic nature of all living being, human in particular, is SELFISHNESS. That selfishness is root cause of greed, fame, respect, compfort and... what not. Once such aims fulfilling selfishness are not achieved easily as krisma 1 pointed out rightly, the CORRUPTION set in and make the State as well stake holders corrupt.

So solution to erase corruption lies with removal of selfishness through various religious surmons. like from Buddhists: "Over power selfishness and try to live for the good of others." From about 10 religions 'Do unto others what you expect othetrs should do unto you."

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: Kuldeep Defintely, both nature and nuture are responsible for the final result that is corruption. As long as origin is concerned, it is defintely the nature. This so because nuture is outcome of people's nature only. The basic nature of all living being, human in particular, is SELFISHNESS. That selfishness is root cause of greed, fame, respect, compfort and... what not. Once such aims fulfilling selfishness are not achieved easily as krisma 1 pointed out rightly, the CORRUPTION set in and make the State as well stake holders corrupt. So solution to erase corruption lies with removal of selfishness through various religious surmons. like from Buddhists: "Over power selfishness and try to live for the good of others." From about 10 religions 'Do unto others what you expect othetrs should do unto you."

Hahaha

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: krisma1 I don't believe anyone is debating against the fact that people are corrupt. Its clear corruption exists. The two theorists just have different ideas as to where it originates. Hobbes centers his beliefs on the presumption that nature determines one's character, while Locke believes that this is determined by nurture.

The point seems moot, since nature seems to play enough of a role that people from literally every background are corrupt.

[Anmon]

corruption is the line between honesty and dishonesty

[Kuldeep]

I think corruption is in line with dishonesty only. Corruption has nothing to do with honesty.

Honest can be no way corrupt...as I know meaning of honesty.

[loser]

Its clear corruption exists. The two theorists just have different ideas as to where it originates. Hobbes centers his beliefs on the presumption that nature determines one's character, while Locke believes that this is determined by nurture.

Nature gives us inherent traits which nurture modifies.

I think corruption is in line with dishonesty only. Corruption has nothing to do with honesty. Honest can be no way corrupt...as I know meaning of honesty.

Dishonesty is the corruption of honesty.

As an interesting aside, the rulers of Myanmar have rejected aid for it's devastated populace because they fear the loss of power (as commonly suggested).

state weakness is a state's inability to address the needs of most of its citizens.

I think the basic premise is flawed. I don't think it's about the state's "ability" but, rather, it's desire. I'm sure that they are able, just not willing.

Actually, I think that state weakness would lead to the dissolution of corruption. I think it goes like this:

Corruption leads to state weakness which diminishes corruption which leads to state strength which increases corruption...a never ending cycle.

[stardust]

I believe its individuals who are corrupt. Both of those theories might be applicable in many countries. But that dosen't means that they are staight forward right. No state as a whole is "weak", and no country as a whole is "corrupted". Its probably more or less about the individuals who have financial power and responsibility, but abuse it.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: loser Nature gives us inherent traits which nurture modifies. Dishonesty is the corruption of honesty.

Keep it up. loser, you said it nicely. You are not loser by name only. You are definite gainer in this debate.