Grand Synthesis: Moral Corruption and the Pursuit of Happiness

By Ormon Angel L. Andes

Corruption
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2018) defines corruption as “a departure from the original
or from what is pure or correct”. Its root word, corrupt, comes from the Latin words cor-, meaning
‘altogether’, and rumpere, meaning ‘to break’. Etymologically speaking, corruption literally
means ‘the process of breaking something altogether’. Revolving around its etymology, Google
defines corruption as “the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed
from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased”. It may be
informal to reference Merriam-Webster and Google for said definitions but our subject, moral
corruption, requires a generic—not specific—definition of corruption in which only they can give.
Take ‘organic chemistry’ for example. ‘Organic’ in this phrase describes ‘chemistry’, which in turn
specifies what kind of chemistry is in question. It is unnecessary to pinpoint what kind of
‘corruption’ we are tackling as the word ‘moral’ is more than enough to do so. Besides, no other
discipline, like linguistics or ethics, defines corruption as it should be used in ‘moral corruption’.
Focusing on the definitions aforementioned, it seems to be incomplete as they failed to
capture what corruption really entails. Objects and concepts where their original meaning or
purpose, and corrupted versions have no middle ground, like firearms (its original purpose is to
provide safety in all forms, and its corrupted form brings terror and harm) and integrity (its
original meaning is wholeness or sincerity, and its corrupted form is, of course, partiality and
insincerity) fall under the definitions mentioned above. However, what about objects and
concepts with corresponding variations, depending on the situation it finds itself in, like food and
beauty. Considering this, a more complete definition of corruption would be: the process of
altering an object or concept, either naturally or artificially, in which the result contradicts its
original meaning or purpose. Perhaps the simplest way to explain corruption with this definition
is by using concrete objects: food, in its essence, has the purpose of providing a living being with
necessary nutrients to sustain its health and therefore prolong its life as it grows (Biology Online).
Its corruption means that food becomes an agent of sickness or death, either naturally, through
decomposition, or artificially, with the addition of poison. Decayed or poisoned food is indeed
impure, incorrect, erroneous, and debased, but one could also say that food with inferior quality
is impure and debased if not incorrect and erroneous. If so, is food with inferior quality corrupt
even if it still stays true to its essence of sustaining a living being’s health and growth? This is the
reason why it is imperative to define a corrupted object as something that contradicts its original
meaning or purpose.
The same thing can also be said with abstract objects. Beauty is any quality present in an
object, concept, or person that pleases the mind and is desirable to the senses (Nurgent 2013).
Corrupted beauty or ugliness is anything that induces disgust naturally, through decomposition
and weathering as time passes by, or artificially by any means possible. Even if a person sees
another object, concept, or person as more beautiful than the other doesn’t make the latter ugly,
but rather less beautiful. Not corrupted, only debased and impure. Following the same line of
thought, we can now define moral corruption as it is. Morality, in its broadest sense, is the quality
of being moral or good. It separates what is good from what is bad. Therefore, moral corruption
is simply the process of altering one’s morality in such a way that an individual will be geared to
do bad things rather than good things, naturally, through one’s own reasoning and judgment, or
artificially with the influence of another. It is important to assert that one’s own reasoning is not
the cause of moral corruption; it is but a means to reach such a state. As a means, it remains
neutral and could also lead a person to do good things rather than contrariwise. On the same
account, it could also happen the other way around. Aristotle (as cited in Singer, 1985) claimed
that our capacity to reason is what makes human beings distinct and it is for the same reason
that this is our greatest potential and weapon. This substantiates why corruption has been
defined as something that can be achieved through natural and artificial means. Humans are
powerful enough to improvise, if not imitate, what nature can do. But the recurring questions
that philosophers and scientists alike from ancient times and until now had tried and are still
trying to answer arises: what makes something moral? What determines which action is right?
Why should people do what is right? Why continue behaving justly?

Morality
These questions show that our ability to reason does not only let us establish the
difference between black and white, but also the depth, context, and further applications of any
object, or concept. In this particular case, that is morality. Therefore, it is not enough to say that
morality is just the quality of being good. Most recently, scholars used morality to descriptively
refer to codes of conduct proposed by a society, group or individual for their own behavior (Gert
2016). It may seem an ambiguous way to define a concept with much debate, but the reason why
moral corruption has no proper meaning is that morality has not been defined as it is. The main
focus of debates from philosophers is the development of moral theories or moral philosophy
(also called ethics). Gert stated that moral theories are large and complex things while definitions
are clearly not. As such he said that to capture the definition of morality is to identify the ‘target’
of moral theorizing. After identifying this ‘target’, he formulated two distinct definitions of
morality applicable to all forms of moral discussions. The first one is already relayed above. For
the second, he used morality in a normative sense referring to a code of conduct that all rational
persons would propose given specific conditions. The former denotes a subjective course of
defining morality while the latter indicates an objectivist’s point of view towards morality. This
division on how to interpret morality, or more specifically, ethics, takes its roots from the era of
Socrates and the Sophists (Singer 1985). Either way, morality is instrumental for guiding people
to ultimately feel happiness.
Ethics
Sophists were professional teachers of rhetoric and argument from ancient Greece.
Collectively, Sophists were the first to question the foundations of an ethical system that requires
the intervention or guidance of the gods, which they revered so much. This spark of skepticism
came from numerous encounters with practical affairs most especially politics. They claimed that
what is commonly deemed good and bad does not depend on any objective fact given by nature,
but rather by the social conventions of a society. Their disposition about ethics is what we call
moral relativism. On the other hand, Socrates (470 – 399 BC) proposed a method of inquiry that
goes beyond what conventional wisdom teaches. Sophists contend that justice resides in keeping
promises and repaying debts. Socrates argued that this is not always the case and that his
contemporaries should continue to examine what they already know and improve them as the
need arises. For example, conventional wisdom would say that returning a borrowed weapon to
its owner is the right thing to do. However, would it still be the right thing to do if the owner
becomes insane and would definitely pose a threat if he is to be given a weapon? This connotes
Socrates’ attempt to establish a philosophy to be known later as moral realism, or the belief that
moral facts or virtues are independent of human thought, feelings, and attitude (Sayre-McCord
2015).

Moral Relativism
According to moral relativism, to be morally corrupt means to oppose social conventions
where the supposed perpetrator is immediately involved. This is exemplified by Socrates’s death
in 399 BC. He was sentenced to death for ‘corrupting the minds of the youth’ by proposing the
aforementioned method of inquiry, which challenges the conventional wisdom firmly believed
by ancient Greeks to be good and just. This still holds true as of today, only, however, with the
emphasis to the condition “where the supposed perpetrator is immediately involved”. This could
be the religion, organization, or country the supposed perpetrator belongs to. Religiously, a
person, let us say a Muslim, would be considered to be morally corrupt if he/she eats meat that
didn’t undergo the process of halal, while a Roman Catholic would not be labeled as morally
corrupt for doing the same thing. Here in the Philippines, we consider death penalty as immoral
while other countries do not. Therefore, with regards to moral relativism, moral corruption
naturally occurs if a person or a group rejects what society considers to be moral, or artificially
though the influence of another person or group who also rejects social conventions. Robert
Merton (as cited in Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, 2010) called this
behavior as deviance. His Strain Theory of Deviance primarily shows the adaptations of the poor
with regards to the strain and frustration brought about by the goals and means established by
the society to achieve economic success. Ethics has always been seen as a branch of philosophy
but Singer argues that its “all-embracing practical nature” links it with other disciplines including
sociology, theology, and, of course, economics. It could be that the reason some people thinks
that society is morally corrupt is because of the said economic goals and means established by
society.
The said adaptations of Merton’s Strain Theory are as follows: (1) conformity, where a
person or group accepts the economic goals and means of working established by society, (2)
innovation, where a person or group accepts the goal, but not the means, (3) ritualism, where a
person or group rejects the goals, but accepts the means, (4) retreatism, where a person or group
rejects both the goals and means, and (5) rebellion, where a person or group rejects both goals
and means, but works to create a new society. Before we analyze these adaptations, let us first
look at another ethical theory: consequentialism. Consequentialism is an ethical theory that
defines which action is right or wrong depending on their resulting consequences (Ethics
Unwrapped – McCombs School of Business 2018). For instance, most people would say that
killing another person is wrong, but if a person manages to kill a serial killer, consequentialism
would attest that it is the right thing do because many more lives will be saved because of it. In
this case, the serial killer is considered as morally corrupt.
Looking from the perspective of deviants, the only ones that concur with
consequentialism are innovators, and rebels as they actually do something rather than ritualists
who only responded psychologically to the strain they experience. Conformists and retreatists,
along with ritualists, also concurs with consequentialism, but that would be in the opposite
perspective. Let us focus on the ones that are most likely deviants.
Innovators, and rebels do work to make a difference, but there is no guarantee that their
methods would bring beneficial consequences. An example of this is the Communist Party of the
Philippines-New People’s Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF). The CPP-NPA-NDF is
a legitimate rebel force fighting for their own cause, and that is to change the current political
system of the Philippines. There have been reports of the group helping local communities with
their problems in supply and security, however, they would still resort to violence, if the need
arises. Just because they are called rebels doesn’t mean that they all have rebellion as their
adaptations. Innovators could also be among their ranks as they are typically united with what
they believe is the right means to achieve their goals, even if they are different. These adaptations
can change over time under specific conditions.
However, how would they know that their action would actually bring good consequences and
not otherwise? With this philosophy, an individual or group becomes morally corrupt if the
consequences of their actions turn about to be harmful even if their motives are deemed to be
just. Derek Parfit (as cited in Singer 1985) suggested that we need not “a theory of what we
should all do, but a theory of what motives we should have”. By doing so, Parfit contended that
practical applications of consequentialism would become closer to conventional moral
judgments we experience every day. This is in conjunction with St. Thomas Aquinas’s (as cited in
Robinson, 2015) account that the motive of every action is of utmost importance, as two identical
acts may become right or wrong depending on their motives. Let us use the example about CPP-
NPA-NDF using violence as their means. Killing supposed perpetrators of their ‘territory’ as a
consequence of self-defense or of defending others would be justified, whereas doing so to
terrorize the locals, force their ideals onto others, and bolster their supplies would make the
action wrong. However, this is not the only way to become innovators, and rebels. Given the
mechanism of how these adaptations work, it could also be applied to how a person or group
treats the goals and means with regards to sociology, theology, biology, anthropology,
psychology, history, and even, politics. Let us take an example with a lighter note with relation
to sociology, that is maintaining discipline in the household through force. A person would be an
innovator if he/she maintains discipline through a more peaceful way like talking and listening to
other members of the family to achieve discipline. A person would be a rebel if he/she believes
that discipline should not be the priority, but rather love and respect to each other through
talking and listening to other member of the family. What if we change the way love is maintained
into talking and listening to other family members? A person would then be an innovator if
he/she believes that force is needed to maintain love, and a person would be a rebel if he/she
believes that force is needed to maintain discipline rather than love. This cycle of conditions and
situational problems show that limitation of moral relativism. For a neutral, third point of view,
concerned parties could all be moral or morally corrupt as what moral relativism proposes. This
is where proponents of moral realism ground their arguments.

Moral Realism
Moral realism has a normative nature in which it tries to set a standard for what people
should do. There have been many attempts to establish the said standard while providing a
strong foundation of why people should actually adhere to them. One of such attempts comes
from St. Augustine of Hippo (as cited in Singer, 1985) at around 4th to 5th century AD. He said that
adherence to moral virtues presented by the bible and genuine love for God would bring out
genuine happiness. In here, the teachings of the bible become the standard of objective morality
while the love for God is the reason why we people should do so. A more direct and practical
reiteration of this philosophy would be that whatever God commands is good and that no
independent standard of goodness could justify what is actually good. This was supported by the
earliest protestants including Martin Luther, and John Calvin. However, critics could not accept
such line of thought as they contend who exactly has the capability or authority to interpret what
God really commands? 800 years later, with the rise of scholasticism, St, Thomas Aquinas, like
other scholastics, mellows down the Christian doctrine by incorporating Aristotle’s view that
happiness could also be gained through a life of friendship and virtue. This is where Aquinas
emphasizes the role our conscience, which is generally in accordance with the teachings of the
bible, has in determining what is right from wrong. In here, what our conscience dictates is the
standard for objective morality while the reason for people to do so remains the same. This
philosophy was further supported by intuitionists, who believe that humans can discern what is
right from wrong with our intuition alone, and naturalists, who believe that empirical knowledge
allows humans to determine right from wrong. The only difference is that intuitionism and
naturalism is detached from religious doctrines as opposed to Aquinas’s belief. For example,
lying, according to the church, is wrong because it goes against the its doctrines, whereas
intuitionists and naturalists would also say that lying is wrong because of we intuitively
understand that lying is wrong as it is, and because lying does not bring happiness based on lived
experiences, respectively.
Evidently, these accounts prove to be too vague to be considered as universal standards
for people to follow. The closest attempt to actually make a universal standard would be
Immanuel Kant. He believed that there was a supreme principle of morality he referred to as The
Categorical Imperative. Categorical imperatives, in the most direct sense, are unconditional
commands that a person should follow whether he/she likes it or not. Basically, these categorical
imperatives are offshoots of the Golden Rule in which a person is not allowed to do anything
he/she would not be willing to allow everyone else to do without making exceptions for
himself/herself. Following this train of thought, lying would be considered wrong because a
person would not allow other people to lie to him/her. This philosophy is known as Kantianism.
With this belief, Kant coined the term “moral worth”. According to him, a morally worthy person
is one who knows what should be done, not just because he wants to. A morally worthy person
gives alms to all beggars at all times under any circumstances because he knows that he should
and not just because of a whim. However, Charles Stevenson (as cited in Singer, 1985) argued
that Kantianism fails to capture the emotive impact morality entails. A person would say, “Lying
is wrong!” just to state a fact, rather it has that special tone of disgust or hatred. Stevenson urged
that moral judgments are significant because of their emotive impact. Given that ethics
ultimately guides people towards happiness, it is imperative to consider people’s emotions.

Universal Prescriptivism
Strictly adhering to either moral relativism and moral realism would eventually lead to
more questions as they reach their limits. To avoid this, universal prescriptivism was developed.
Richard Hare’s (as cited in Singer, 1985) universal prescriptivism focuses on universalizing moral
judgments. This is mostly the same with the categorical imperatives of Kantianism. The only
difference is that universal prescriptivism advocates the notion of universalizability. For instance,
if a person claims that he may kill rapists, he must be prepared to prescribe that if he/she happens
to commit rape, he/she should also be killed. Moral judgment comes from the individual (the
subjectivist part) but the notion of universalizability prevents him/her to make faulty moral
judgment out of the disapproval of experiencing the effects of the same faulty action. In this
philosophy, it would be easier to determine if one’s moral action is genuine, as the genuineness
of an action is in line with the emotions felt by the doer. Of course, universal prescriptivism still
poses some difficulties and uncertainties, but this philosophy has the least, as compared to
others.
 Ethics focus on determining what makes something moral, what determines which action
is right, why should people do what is right, and why continue behaving justly. Philosophers did
not directly address why moral corruption occurs, because it was implied. Simply speaking, moral
corruption occurs once people stop feeling happiness. Or once they stop pursuing happiness.

References
Biology Online. (n.a.). Food. Retrieved from https://www.biology-
online.org/dictionary/Food
Contreras, A. (2017). Terrorism and the new people’s army. The Manila Times. Retrieved
from http://www.manilatimes.net/terrorism-new-peoples-army/367612/
Ethics Unwrapped – McCombs School of Business. (2018). Consequentialism. Retrieved
from http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism
Gert, B. (2016). The definition of morality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
Google. (n.a.). corruption. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com.ph/search?ei=lCX5WtTZD4yr0gSPpZP4BA&q=corruption+meaning&o
q=corruption+meaning&gs_l=psy-
ab.3..35i39k1l2j0l8.14250.17416.0.17580.18.12.0.0.0.0.236.1471.0j5j3.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-
ab..14.4.701...0i22i30k1.0.GJhIlvskEKA
n.a. (n.d.) Kantian ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm
Nurgent, P. (2013). beauty. Psychology Dictionary. Retrieved from
https://psychologydictionary.org/beauty/
Robinson, A. (2015). An a to z theory | Thomas Aquinas: ethics and anti-capitalism.
Ceasefire. Retrieved from https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/thomas-aquinas-ethics-anti-
capitalism/
Singer, P. (1985). Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1985----
.htm
Merriam-Webster. (2018). corruption. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/corruption
Sayre-McCord, G. (2015). Moral realism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Retrieved
from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World. (2010). Explaining deviance.
Retrieved from http://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/7-2-explaining-deviance/