Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is bribe immoral?

Rate this topic


Leonid

Recommended Posts

For the most people who consider themselves as moral the answer is obvious-yes, it is. And yet "Atlas Shrugged" heroic characters like Rearden use bribe all the time-in order to conduct business or simply to get divorce. The reason for it is clear-they live in the crooked society driven by arbitrary laws and in order to get along they must used crooked ways. But does it mean that from the ethical point of view two wrongs make right? Is moral compromise acceptable even in order to achieve the noble goal? What it does to one's moral stature and self-esteem? Doesn't it encourage the proliferation of corruption in the already corrupted society? Or one should say-these are the rules of the game, I never made this world and I have to act accordingly.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't wrong, it isn't a moral compromise and it shouldn't do anything to your moral stature and self-esteem. It is simply self-defense for situations when your rights are being violated and you have no real options. It is no more immoral than paying mafia protection money. It's not your responsibility to sacrifice any freedom you can buy simply because other people set up a system which violates your rights.

Edited by oso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re OSO

In other words you say that bribe in these circumstances is moral, it's a right thing to do, even in order to obtain a divorce, which is hardly self-defense issue. But in reality we all living in such a society. Would you then advocate a bribe as a moral thing, an acceptable way for an Objectivist to conduct his business and his family affairs?

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re OSO

In other words you say that bribe in these circumstances is moral, it's a right thing to do, even in order to obtain a divorce, which is hardly self-defense issue. But in reality we all living in such a society. Would you then advocate a bribe as a moral thing, an acceptable way for an Objectivist to conduct his business and his family affairs?

I think it would be better to not discuss divorce. I don't know enough about the state of divorce law to say if bribery would be moral or not. As for your buisness affairs, yes, in the face of otherwise insurmountable government regulation, bribery is moral. If a man can't operate his buisness without bribing corrupt officials to get his enviormental clearance, building permits, liquor license, etc., what else is he to do? He can abandon his buisness or he can pay the protection money. There aren't going to be many cases where the former would not be a sacrifice for an Objectivist. Edited by oso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what range of 'offences' this question covers. It's contextual, needing more examples.

For instance, if one is caught in possession of drugs, would escaping with a bribe be moral?

What about a speeding fine?

There is a slippery slope between not making a martyr of oneself for a non-objective law,

and evading the consequences of one's actions. The rationalization might be something like :

" In our present societies, all laws are 'tainted' by subjectivity, therefore it's moral to escape them by whatever means, any time".

The fact is, rational laws do exist among the irrational ones, even now.

Since morality tops law, these should be assessed, instance by instance.

For drug possession, I think a bribe is rational; for speeding, not (speed limits, to my mind,

having objective value.) Family and business affairs, yes.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OSO, Tony

The problem is that such an approach completely exclude objectivity from the consideration, makes everybody law into himself. I, for example, consider speed limits arbitrary. And what about driving with expired license? And what about a bribe to get a government tender? Etc..etc..etc.. There is a need to establish a principle. A bribe is "The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties."

Bribe therefore is a tool of destruction of the legal structure and corruption of officials. In other words, a widespread practice of bribe could render a society completely lawless. Using such an approach any prisoner who maintains that he is innocent has a moral ground to bribe his way out of prison, court sentence notwithstanding. Corruption cannot be selective, that is-applicable only to the arbitrary laws. The corrupt official would accept bribes to bend laws which are objective. Operating business by using bribes renders a businessman totally dependent on the corrupt official. How it's better than government regulations? I presume it will be much worse. Besides, the corrupt official will have a power to blackmail such a business operator, since bribe is illegal. The price will constantly go up. Bribe also eliminates the principle of equality before law, which is a corner stone of just society. So, I don't think that a bribe is a moral or even useful thing to do. If one feels that law infringes his rights, he rather should test the law in the court of appeal or act in order to change it.. As long as we live in the semi-free society and not under brutal dictatorship, it's still possible. As you may remember, Rearden in AS used this option successfully. Much better than bribe. That leave us with a question: why Ayn Rand approved on bribe?

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Divorce is a self-defense issue."-I wouldn't contest this point. Who knows what you went through. Maybe your ex-wife gave to you a hard time, initiating force against you and infringing your rights.

"No, we don't."-This point I'd like to contest. We are living in the society ruled by the mixture of objective and arbitrary, mostly preventive laws, which are, as Ayn Rand observed, a trade mark of totalitarian state. This is a man-made reality, but reality nevertheless. A bribe is an attempt to fake reality, to pretend that by paying racket money one can conduct a normal life and business. But faking of reality never works, it's unsustainable. It creates a card house build on the lie and this is definitely not endorsed by Objectivism

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, we don't."-This point I'd like to contest. We are living in the society ruled by the mixture of objective and arbitrary, mostly preventive laws, which are, as Ayn Rand observed, a trade mark of totalitarian state. This is a man-made reality, but reality nevertheless. A bribe is an attempt to fake reality, to pretend that by paying racket money one can conduct a normal life and business. But faking of reality never works, it's unsustainable. It creates a card house build on the lie and this is definitely not endorsed by Objectivism

It's not? So John Galt should've never faked reality to protect Dagny's life? Rearden should've never bribed anyone for supplies? What about the device that made Galt's Gulch look like uninhabited wasteland from the outside?

For someone who is against faking reality under all circumstances, Ayn Rand sure had her heroes faking reality pretty much as the standard response to government thuggery.

Check out a documentary called "Garbo: The Spy". It's about how faking reality helped save the world.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a man rationally considers himself more objective than certain arbitrary

laws, he must take whatever action to survive - rationally. One's life is an end in itself,

not an end in the State. E.g. here we are in a country that has legislated that government

tenders be granted demographically; because of their skin colour, a segment of

citizenry can only receive 9% of jobs - in the private sector, too - and 9% of

State tenders. Even that law is non-transparently applied, leaving all of us in no

doubt it's deliberately prejudiced against one race group.

This is a vicious law, with an obvious intent. If I owned, let's say, a road

construction firm, I would certainly pay a bribe to the bureaucrat for the contract, than go

bankrupt. (And so far, I've never paid one in my life, despite how accepted a practice it is now.)

The same with avoiding a prison sentence for possession of marijuana.

What seems like faking reality, is facing reality. This is how it IS.

If one wants to dedicate the energy and finance in opposing these injustices

or others through the legal system, I would hold very little hope, but wish him

well. First, before anything, he must SURVIVE.

When all bets are off - as Rand said, the rational individualist must judge for

himself, which is moral law, and which is not. When to pay the bribe, and when not,

according to his rational morality. He is not a sacrificial animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Nicky

"So John Galt should've never faked reality to protect Dagny's life?"-When did he do that and when her life was under threat?

"Rearden shouldn't never bribed anyone for supplies?"-Yes , he shouldn't. He should have quit like everybody else who understand what's going on. Galt device doesn't fake reality. By using such a device he is not pretending that Galt Gulch is a wasteland. He knows very well what it is. To fake reality is not to hide certain things out of sight but to pretend that these things don't exist. A bribe is an example of such a pretension. A person who bribes hopes that he can eliminate government thuggery . This is an illusion.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony

Well, to fake reality, to pretend that things are not what their are, that A is non A is not a way to survive. it is a way to perish since soon or later reality will slap back in the face. You said " This is a vicious law, with an obvious intent. If I owned, let's say, a road construction firm, I would certainly pay a bribe to the bureaucrat for the contract, than go bankrupt. "

If so why to pay? Selling the company and living comfortably on the interest would be much easier. As for marijuana, I disagree. Paying bribe doesn't eliminate the existent law. It just breed corrupted policemen. I'm sure that this is not a kind of police which you want to see around, let alone to deal with.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Nicky

"So John Galt should've never faked reality to protect Dagny's life?"-When did he do that and when her life was under threat?

"Rearden shouldn't never bribed anyone for supplies?"-Yes , he shouldn't. He should have quit like everybody else who understand what's going on. Galt device doesn't fake reality. By using such a device he is not pretending that Galt Gulch is a wasteland. He knows very well what it is. To fake reality is not to hide certain things out of sight but to pretend that these things don't exist. A bribe is an example of such a pretension. A person who bribes hopes that he can eliminate government thuggery . This is an illusion.

He instructed Dagny to lie in order to make it seem as if Galt was her enemy. Yes, her life was under threat, but if that is an excuse to fake reality, I don't see how your buisness, your livelihood being under threat is not. Rearden lived in world of Atlas Shrugged, but what about those who live in modern day USA, whose buisnesses are just as impossible to run without bribery and for whom going on strike or selling the buisness is not practical in any way at all? Faking reality is completely justifiable when you are doing it against people who don't recognize the facts of reality and decide to violate your rights. Faking reality to the government so that they won't destroy your buisness by bribing an official to tell them that you meet envriomental standards is no different than faking reality to a mugger by lying to him and saying you don't have any more money when you actually have several hundred dollars sewed into your shoe sole. You aren't hoping that your bribe can eliminate government thuggery just as you aren't hoping that the mugger doesn't have a gun and isn't demanding your money. It's simply self-defense. Edited by oso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony

Well, to fake reality, to pretend that things are not what their are, that A is non A is not a way to survive. it is a way to perish since soon or later reality will slap back in the face. You said " This is a vicious law, with an obvious intent. If I owned, let's say, a road construction firm, I would certainly pay a bribe to the bureaucrat for the contract, than go bankrupt. "

If so why to pay? Selling the company and living comfortably on the interest would be much easier. As for marijuana, I disagree. Paying bribe doesn't eliminate the existent law. It just breed corrupted policemen. I'm sure that this is not a kind of police which you want to see around, let alone to deal with.

I don't get this. A is A, all over Africa.

It is the ignorant and evasive perception of capitalism on this continent, that 'somebody' gets a kickback for ANY deal to be made. From the large cell-phone companies to construction of dams, to purchasing billion dollar 'defence' systems from so-called legitimate, European arms corporations, it is the 'standard way' of doing business.

So, me paying a bribe will breed corrupt politicians and police? They, are, have been and will be, corrupt - without me.

Additionally, one could make the supposition that (for honest people like you and I) every second or third dollar in our pockets came there by way a client or employer that has and is paying bribes to exist and thrive. Unknowingly, we are a part of the system.

Don't get me wrong: bribery is dirty. But when your State has stacked the deck against you with immoral or just arbitrary laws, penalizing the law-abiding and moral (eg, for their ability, or on the basis of skin colour) then the good are suffering for being the good. The individual must protect himself when there is no objective government to protect his rights.

And let the whole house of cards collapse, as it must do one day. It's not your or my duty to prop it up.

btw, doesn't this remind you of Leo in 'We the Living?' though without his premises (or his end), of course.

To repeat, this is no excuse for flouting and breaking the Law arbitrarily - but to bribe for his survival is moral when carried out by an Objectively moral person, and he would judge every case on merit.

(Being forced to sell one's company: - remember, a company that's on the point of bankruptcy, and near worthless - because of one's noble ideals, and rather than paying the bribe, is sacrificial, by my reckoning. Also, seriously, would you really advise anyone near and dear to you that they must not fake reality - that they must go to prison for marijuana possession - and refuse them the option of bribery, and staying free??)

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, you are 100% right, and this is a reason why Africa in such a bad shape. But faking of reality is not only a deception of another person. It is mainly a self-deception, make-belief. If person thinks that he can run his business successfully in the long run by using bribes, he will find pretty soon that it is impossible to run any business in the lawless society. His competitors could also use bribes and to find friends in the high places. You can bribe a cop to avoid prosecution for the marijuana possession, but somebody else could rob you and to bribe the same cop to get away with it. How would you like that? You said "So, me paying a bribe will breed corrupt politicians and police? They, are, have been and will be, corrupt - without me." This is true, but do you really want to contribute to the spread of corruption? The fact that 30% of African population suffer from AIDS doesn't mean that you should help to spread it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky "He instructed Dagny to lie in order to make it seem as if Galt was her enemy. Yes, her life was under threat, but if that is an excuse to fake reality,"

Deception of the enemy is not faking of reality. Self-deception is. Person who thinks that he could run his business by using bribes deceits himself in the first place. It is difficult to run business under government regulations. But to run it in the lawless society would be impossible. And why selling of business is not an option?

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deception of the enemy is not faking of reality. Self-deception is. Person who thinks that he could run his business by using bribes deceits himself in the first place. It is difficult to run business under government regulations. But to run it in the lawless society would be impossible. And why selling of business is not an option?

Leon,

Your reality-faking, self-deception argument is central, I think - and I believe it's a good

argument. But who are we talking about? i've gone ahead on the premise that the person is

rationally moral - one who doesn't enter bribery on a whim.

More importantly, he's one person who knows objectively that his products or services are

of high value, not shoddy and of poor quality; iow, he thinks the tender he is competing for should be his ON

MERIT - and he would have been a top choice for it under normal circumstances.

Anything otherwise, and I imagine he wouldn't go after it. The kick-back in this case is merely a guarantee

that he receives the contract. Is he faking reality in his work and out-put? Or deceiving himself that he deserves it?

I believe not.

And does he fool himself that without a bribe he would still have succeeded? Also, no.

Only thing remaining is: would he feel dirty for doing the deal?That's where I tend to agree with you.

However, in counter-point, his self-esteem is as much based on being productive, and surviving - dealing with an

immoral, all-pervading reality, and making the hard choice is not necessarily faking it.

Business with bribes and kick-backs is a world wide epidemic, along with crony-capitalism. Its a fine line to walk,

but I think it can be done selectively and morally..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deception of the enemy is not faking of reality. Self-deception is. Person who thinks that he could run his business by using bribes deceits himself in the first place.

Stop it. All you're doing is memorizing various phrases from Objectivism out of context, and then constructing rationalizations for them based on nonsense like this.

Is that really your position? That if you pay a bribe, your business will magically disappear? That to ever think that there are circumstances when paying off a bureaucrat or two can be useful is self-deceit?

Whenever your rationalizations take you to such an obviously false claim about reality, all you have to do is look at reality and stop yourself. Just look at all the businesses that have paid bribes in the past and are still doing fine. Look at the oil companies operating pretty much anywhere in the world. They are supplying the civilized wold with energy. Without them and their bribes, you wouldn't be able to post about how a bribe can never work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leon,

Your reality-faking, self-deception argument is central, I think - and I believe it's a good

argument. But who are we talking about? i've gone ahead on the premise that the person is

rationally moral - one who doesn't enter bribery on a whim.

More importantly, he's one person who knows objectively that his products or services are

of high value, not shoddy and of poor quality; iow, he thinks the tender he is competing for should be his ON

MERIT - and he would have been a top choice for it under normal circumstances.

Anything otherwise, and I imagine he wouldn't go after it. The kick-back in this case is merely a guarantee

that he receives the contract. Is he faking reality in his work and out-put? Or deceiving himself that he deserves it?

I believe not.

And does he fool himself that without a bribe he would still have succeeded? Also, no.

Only thing remaining is: would he feel dirty for doing the deal?That's where I tend to agree with you.

However, in counter-point, his self-esteem is as much based on being productive, and surviving - dealing with an

immoral, all-pervading reality, and making the hard choice is not necessarily faking it.

Business with bribes and kick-backs is a world wide epidemic, along with crony-capitalism. Its a fine line to walk,

but I think it can be done selectively and morally..

Tony, you see when one uses bribes or connections or both to promote his business, the quality of the product is already irrelevant. So is a self-esteem. You cannot be selectively moral, you cannot say to yourself-i will bribe ( steal, lie etc...) only once just to promote my business and then i'll be honest. The faked reality which one creates will not allow that. To sustain such a business one will need continually bribe and lie. There isn't any merit in self-deception and faked reality. Inherently moral person who runs his business on lie and bribes is a contradiction in terms.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky : "Is that really your position? That if you pay a bribe, your business will magically disappear?"

Yes, it is really my position. And no, your business will not magically disappear. However the ownership of such a business won't be sustainable in the long run. It will be on mercy of the politician you bribe, exactly as it is on mercy of regulating government. Government at least has some rules. The corrupt politician has none. BTW who told you that oil companies operate on bribe? As far as I know that is rather an exception than rule. Corruption is a criminal offence. They maybe practice crony capitalism , but not overt corruption.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky : "Is that really your position? That if you pay a bribe, your business will magically disappear?"

Yes, it is really my position. And no, your business will not magically disappear. However the ownership of such a business won't be sustainable in the long run. It will be on mercy of the politician you bribe, exactly as it is on mercy of regulating government. Government at least has some rules. The corrupt politician has none.

Right. Hence the bribe: so that the corrupt politician will bend the abusive government rule that's hindering you. How exactly would someone bending an unfair rule in your favor have a negative effect on your business?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Hence the bribe: so that the corrupt politician will bend the abusive government rule that's hindering you. How exactly would someone bending an unfair rule in your favor have a negative effect on your business?

I suppose it could be said that the businessman is dealing with the reality that confronts him by bribing the bureaucrat. He knows he can't operate without persuading the masters to look the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ... no, your business will not magically disappear. However the ownership of such a business won't be sustainable in the long run. It will be on mercy of the politician you bribe, exactly as it is on mercy of regulating government.
What's the alternative? Often, the alternative is not having any business at all. There are countries where the legitimate shop-owners in a marketplace have to pay the local beat cop some amount each month. It is like paying off the mafia, and similar calculations apply. Yes, it is true that the bribe perpetuates the system. However, one has to weigh that against the alternative -- including a judgement of how easy it is to change the system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an indictment of the state of liberty today that capitalism is totally

pragmatic, geared to shorter term survival, and at the mercy of bureaucrats.

All one has is a choice to enter business and industry, or not.

To sell off one's existing company, or not. Both are a kind of surrender, aren't they?

I have much agreement with Leonid's moral high road - basically "I refuse to exist

by others' permission" - but the fact remains that to an extent, we all do anyway.

So should all ethical businessmen quietly disappear until such time as moral equivocation (like bribery and cronyism) disappears? Capitalism would not have survived this long(in its compromised form) if they did. "Shrugging" is not a practical option for the forseeable future that I can see. First we must survive.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Hence the bribe: so that the corrupt politician will bend the abusive government rule that's hindering you. How exactly would someone bending an unfair rule in your favor have a negative effect on your business?

How? Because it is a deception and self-deception. The corrupt politician actually cannot bend any law, he has no legislative power. But he for time being can turn a blind eye on your transgressions. Ask yourself what would happen to you and to your business if such a politician get arrested for corruption and becomes a state witness against you? Not only bribe is immoral, it even doesn't have any instrumental value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...