TED Conversations

Anil Rajvanshi

This conversation is closed.

Debate: Is corruption a moral or a legal issue?

Too often the corruption debate and discussions all over the world are focused on how somebody broke a law. By that definition Mahatma Gandhi was the most corrupt man since he periodically broke British laws!

By dictionary definition corruption relates to doing things which are not ethical.

Hence how should the corruption be defined and fought for greater good?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 24 2012: Corruption has always been a moral issue. It has not always been a legal one. In his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You" first printing 1894, late author Leo Tolstoy speaks of corrupt governments in which the lower classes have no legal say. What the government does is within the boundaries of the law because they write the law. It happened in the Roman era. It happened prior to the French Revolution. Leo Tolstoy speaks in reference to European Governments. You can see traces of it in many governments throughout the world.

    It used to be that the captain went down with the ship. When businesses folded, its founder usually folded with it. Nowadays, CEO's can run a company into bankruptcy and still come away with the booty. I call it pirating. Years ago pirates were hung on the high seas. Now some are running the show and its all legal.

    When I was growing up, the mafia charged high interest rates for loans and it was labeled as criminal. Now the credit card companies do similar and it's no longer regarded as organized crime because the law is on their side. They say it's good for the economy. Granted, people need to learn to manage their money. But all they did was play follow the leader. They did what they see their government doing and it got them into trouble.

    In the eyes of many, it's not stealing if it's legal, it's only stealing if the law says it is.

    Corruption can only exist when leaders choose to accept it. It doesn't make it right, it does however make it legally acceptable by the ruling class.

    People need to choose for themselves whether or not to abide by the principles of right and wrong. This is a moral, not a legal obligation. What is morally right may require breaking the law.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.