social1  social3 social2



Sociologists have long and do not investigate whether corruption bill passes or not in the elections corrupt politicians, but why is not passed or-more precision- why has about electoral purposes as insignificant. The most condescending analyze the reasons why voters "forgive" the corrupt. This language indicates the recognition of a moral attitude of the voters, because on the one hand, suggests that voters do not positive about corruption in general-since, otherwise, would have nothing to perdonar- and, secondly, a positive, conciliatory attitude, healthy looking towards the future, forgetting the past, although it is actually a past present, because the applicant continues mired in corruption at the time of the election. Others wonder about the reasons why voters do not "penalize" corrupt politicians. these also stem from the moral condemnation of corruption by the voters, but prefer not to go into the garden of forgiveness and stay in the most neutral of simple renunciation of electoral punishment. But, either because voters forgive or not penalized because, the truth is that corruption-not only in Spain does not detract votes.

The latest surveys in Western democracies do not give satisfied with unquestioned investigate the relevance of partisanship-that means of membership of the voter and the politician same political vote when a corrupt party. Outside the ideologies and partisan interests, in the boundless world of the small, specific causes, it is found that voters put in front of corruption experience and results of economic management to justify the re-election of corrupt candidates, and often also rely on the lack of credibility of the allegations or information about political corruption, they consider interested. This last argument looks more like a shelter ethical -not less interested than the information that tachan of interesada-, a vote because of the corrupt. By putting the blade in the "lack of credibility of the information or indictment" as the cause of their vote to a corrupt, the respondent is claiming both its rejection of corruption, standing at the side of the uncorrupted and hinting, incidentally, they would not vote the corrupt if he were sure that it is. But this ethical image fades quickly, because it also puts the cross on the answer given priority over corruption and government experience to the economic performance of corrupt management. Here there is no ethical shelter nor any subterfuge, but open by the respondent that has no problem voting for a corrupt if you have experience of governance and economic management result is positive recognition. Ethics mask disappears, then, and instead shines pocket in all its glory.

It is worth reflecting on this scene in which the actors move. When, as just happened in our country listen to a senior government official said that the (possible) corruption of their coreligionists -during long denied, as advised surveys whose recognition is already (almost) inescapable, is thing of the past, and now it touches is to look to the future and allow formation of a stable government to ensure the welfare-not doubt that this high office is following to the letter the result of surveys and therefore , the board of advisors campaign. But beyond the obvious, there is a background that explains this policy glibly there is a shared moral deficit between voters and elected.

Place the point of view -of the moral morally justified, ie no longer what is good or bad, fair or unfair-but implies from individual decisions and behaviors moral -the part of caring for oneself-that they can behave as criteria of social organization. If one is not a corrupt or is willing to be, you do not want to live in a corrupt society and, therefore, be ruled by corrupt. In the opposite direction, the spread of corruption inside and outside politics and daily trivialization of corruption indicate that many voters are corrupt, or would not mind be if they could, and therefore does not disturb them to be surrounded by them be ruled by them, they are integrated naturally into that reality. In this scenario unethically of each other -electores and elect-the criterion of social organization is not fair, but what useful. In the background, from the moral point of view or, if preferred, ethical, by the time dimension of the matter what surveys show the reasons why corruption is not subtracted votes is seated among voters the idea that the end justifies the means: is justified vote for a corrupt if it is useful for the pocket. Economic welfare becomes so, in order that seeks to justify the means used to keep it, as if there were no other means to get that vote for the corrupt. The path in moral philosophy to try and provide moral content to a medium itself amoral attending to an end is a long story, but never he has ignored the intrinsic moral content intended purpose and proportionality of the medium used with respect to that end. All this is alien to voters who vote corrupt; not in them pretension to consider just what is useful, but only to do what they consider useful for your pocket. Those who seek to organize social coexistence from this postulate have the burden to prove that history can. Others have a moral duty to try to prevent try.

Jose Manuel Gomez Benitez
Traductor de Google para empresas:Google Translator ToolkitTraductor de sitios webGlobal Market Finder

FaLang translation system by Faboba

La Fundación Valsaín utiliza cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar su experiencia al navegar por la web, analizando la navegación en nuestro Sitio Web Para saber mas sobre nuestra Politica de Privacidad haga click Saber mas ....

Si continúa navegando, usted está aceptando su uso