CORRUPTION AND IMMORALITY

Corruption is a species of immorality, and corrupt actions are species of immoral actions. But not all immorality is corruption, and not all immoral actions are corrupt actions. Minor misdemeanours might count as immoral without being acts of corruption. Negligent actions are sometimes immoral, but not necessarily corrupt. And some serious and intended wrongdoings do not constitute corruption. For example, if a man kills his wife’s lover out of hatred, his action is immoral, but not necessarily corrupt. Finally, harming oneself can be morally undesirable in some instances, e.g. undermining one’s autonomy and health by becoming a heroin addict; but such actions are not necessarily corrupt.

Corrupt actions have a number of properties that other immoral actions do not necessarily possess. Firstly, corrupt actions are not once-off actions. For an action to be properly labelled as corrupt, it has to be a manifestation of a disposition or habit on the part of the agent to commit such an action. Indeed, one of the reasons why noble cause corruption is so problematic in policing, is because it involves a disposition to commit a certain kind of action. Acts of noble cause corruption are not simply once-off actions; they are habitual. At any rate, Joe’s action fails this first test for being a corrupt action.

Secondly, corrupt actions — involving as they do a habit to act in a certain way — are not performed because of a specific non-recurring eventuality. They are rather performed because of an ongoing condition or recurring situation. In the case of noble cause corruption in policing, the ostensible ongoing condition is the belief that the law is hopelessly and irredeemably inadequate, not only because it fails to provide the police with sufficient powers that will result in offenders being apprehended and convicted, but also because it fails to provide sufficiently harsh punishments for offenders. Accordingly — so the argument runs — the police need to engage in noble cause corruption. That is, they need to develop a habit to bend and break the law in the service of the greater moral good of justice. Once again, Joe’s action fails the test for being a corrupt action. Although Joe is motivated to do wrong in order to achieve good, or at least to avoid evil, he is responding to a highly specific — indeed extraordinary — circumstance in which he finds himself, and one that will not necessarily be repeated.4 He has not developed a disposition or habit in response to a felt ongoing condition or recurring situation.

Thirdly, corrupt actions are typically motivated, at least in part, by individual or narrow collective self-interest. In the case of policing, the interest can be individual self-interest, such as personal financial gain or career advancement. Or it can be the narrow collective self-interest of the group, such as in the case of a clique of corrupt detectives. Since Joe’s action is not motivated by self-interest, it is presumably not a case of corruption. On the other hand, it might seem that so-called acts of noble cause corruption are likewise not motivated by self-interest (or narrow collective self-interest), and thus ought not to be labelled as acts of corruption. But this move is a little too quick.