What is political corruption?: A philosophical analysis
- Authors: Onah, Gideon Owogeka
- Date: 2021-10-29
- Subjects: Political corruption , Political ethics , Political science Philosophy , Philp, Mark , Thompson, Dennis F (Dennis Frank), 1940- , Miller, Seumas
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/192298 , vital:45213
- Description: The concept of political corruption is crucial in political discourses. Since the 1990s, there has been a massive resurgence of focus on political corruption. Definitional accounts of the concept have been proposed. This work is a critique of the accounts that have since been provided. I argue that these definitions are inadequate, offering an alternative. The predominant definition of the concept is that it refers to public officials’ violations of public office rules due to their respective interests in private gain. I consider this wrong for three reasons. First, politics includes more than the activities of public officials. Second, that is not the only behaviour that is contrary to the moral imperatives of politics. Third, the lack of political integrity is not just about acting wrongly. It also includes the possession of political vices. Observing the inadequacy of the dominant perspective, Seumas Miller offers a more comprehensive definition. He defines political corruption as any act that despoils the moral character of political actors and undermines the processes and purposes of legitimate political institutions. However, his definition is also insufficient. First, he includes some immoral non-political acts as examples of political corruption, although he agrees that political corruption entails immorality in politics. Second, he unjustifiably excludes some immoral political actions as denoting political corruption. In contrast, I define political corruption as possessing political vices or acting contrary to moral, political imperatives. This definition is a comprehensive reflection of what it means to lack political integrity. My thesis begins with a critical account of politics and its moral imperatives. That is the criteria for determining what political corruption is. , Thesis (MA) -- Faculty of Humanities, Philosophy, 2021
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021-10-29
- Authors: Onah, Gideon Owogeka
- Date: 2021-10-29
- Subjects: Political corruption , Political ethics , Political science Philosophy , Philp, Mark , Thompson, Dennis F (Dennis Frank), 1940- , Miller, Seumas
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/192298 , vital:45213
- Description: The concept of political corruption is crucial in political discourses. Since the 1990s, there has been a massive resurgence of focus on political corruption. Definitional accounts of the concept have been proposed. This work is a critique of the accounts that have since been provided. I argue that these definitions are inadequate, offering an alternative. The predominant definition of the concept is that it refers to public officials’ violations of public office rules due to their respective interests in private gain. I consider this wrong for three reasons. First, politics includes more than the activities of public officials. Second, that is not the only behaviour that is contrary to the moral imperatives of politics. Third, the lack of political integrity is not just about acting wrongly. It also includes the possession of political vices. Observing the inadequacy of the dominant perspective, Seumas Miller offers a more comprehensive definition. He defines political corruption as any act that despoils the moral character of political actors and undermines the processes and purposes of legitimate political institutions. However, his definition is also insufficient. First, he includes some immoral non-political acts as examples of political corruption, although he agrees that political corruption entails immorality in politics. Second, he unjustifiably excludes some immoral political actions as denoting political corruption. In contrast, I define political corruption as possessing political vices or acting contrary to moral, political imperatives. This definition is a comprehensive reflection of what it means to lack political integrity. My thesis begins with a critical account of politics and its moral imperatives. That is the criteria for determining what political corruption is. , Thesis (MA) -- Faculty of Humanities, Philosophy, 2021
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021-10-29
The dynamics of difference: oppression, cross-cultural liberation and the problems of imperialism and paternalism
- Oelofsen, Marianna Christina
- Authors: Oelofsen, Marianna Christina
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Oppression (Psychology) , Culture conflict , Multiculturalism , Political ethics , Imperialism , Paternalism
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:2716 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1002846 , Oppression (Psychology) , Culture conflict , Multiculturalism , Political ethics , Imperialism , Paternalism
- Description: This dissertation defends an account of oppression and supports a specific means of engaging with oppression cross-culturally. The project examines whether it is defensible to interfere in other cultures at all. Both the cultural relativist and the neo-imperialist approaches are argued to be an inadequate response to the question of whether it is defensible to interfere in other cultures, as both these approaches neglect the autonomy of the agents concerned. This project has two related goals. It first advances an answer to the question ‘what is oppression?’ An account of oppression is developed which will enable oppression to be identified cross-culturally. In order to start constructing an approach which will be adequate to respond to the question of interference, it is necessary to consider a means of identifying oppression crossculturally. The second objective is to examine the possibility of non-imperialistic and nonpaternalistic cross-cultural liberation projects. The first aim (advancing an account of oppression), is executed through arguing for an ethical framework which will be helpful in this context, and arguing for an account of oppression derived from this framework. The second aim (examining the possibility of non-imperialistic and non-paternalistic liberation), is carried out in two parts. The first part responds to two standard objections from cultural relativism, which would accuse a universal account such as mine of imperialism and paternalism. The first objection claims that a universalist account neglects historical and cultural difference, while the second objection claims that it neglects autonomy. In responding to these objections, it is noted that while my responses prove, theoretically, that a universal account of oppression need not lead to imperialism or paternalism, there is a danger that the account could become imperialistic and paternalistic in its application. With the intention of dealing with this problem, I advance a methodology of cross-cultural understanding which would reduce the likelihood of imperialism and paternalism in liberation projects. This notion of cross-cultural understanding is the most important contribution of this project. The objective is not to give practical judgments on when a specific liberation project is in fact paternalistic or imperialistic, but rather to propose guidelines which would need to be applied to each particular instance.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Oelofsen, Marianna Christina
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Oppression (Psychology) , Culture conflict , Multiculturalism , Political ethics , Imperialism , Paternalism
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:2716 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1002846 , Oppression (Psychology) , Culture conflict , Multiculturalism , Political ethics , Imperialism , Paternalism
- Description: This dissertation defends an account of oppression and supports a specific means of engaging with oppression cross-culturally. The project examines whether it is defensible to interfere in other cultures at all. Both the cultural relativist and the neo-imperialist approaches are argued to be an inadequate response to the question of whether it is defensible to interfere in other cultures, as both these approaches neglect the autonomy of the agents concerned. This project has two related goals. It first advances an answer to the question ‘what is oppression?’ An account of oppression is developed which will enable oppression to be identified cross-culturally. In order to start constructing an approach which will be adequate to respond to the question of interference, it is necessary to consider a means of identifying oppression crossculturally. The second objective is to examine the possibility of non-imperialistic and nonpaternalistic cross-cultural liberation projects. The first aim (advancing an account of oppression), is executed through arguing for an ethical framework which will be helpful in this context, and arguing for an account of oppression derived from this framework. The second aim (examining the possibility of non-imperialistic and non-paternalistic liberation), is carried out in two parts. The first part responds to two standard objections from cultural relativism, which would accuse a universal account such as mine of imperialism and paternalism. The first objection claims that a universalist account neglects historical and cultural difference, while the second objection claims that it neglects autonomy. In responding to these objections, it is noted that while my responses prove, theoretically, that a universal account of oppression need not lead to imperialism or paternalism, there is a danger that the account could become imperialistic and paternalistic in its application. With the intention of dealing with this problem, I advance a methodology of cross-cultural understanding which would reduce the likelihood of imperialism and paternalism in liberation projects. This notion of cross-cultural understanding is the most important contribution of this project. The objective is not to give practical judgments on when a specific liberation project is in fact paternalistic or imperialistic, but rather to propose guidelines which would need to be applied to each particular instance.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »