Money Moral Dilemma

Here's this week's hypothetical situation for you to cogitate on:
Should Gulliver allow bribes to Lilliput?

Gulliver's been the President of Anblica, a well run democratic country, for many years. Some of its major companies have been doing deals with Lilliput, a far away country whose huge wealth comes from Gold mines. In Lilliput bribery is seen as a regular part of running a business; and the only way to get large contracts. Gulliver is aware many normally well behaved Anblican companies have bribed members of the Lilliputian government; the net result is new Anblish jobs and a stronger economy; without the bribes that wouldn't happen, but it's against every tenet of Anblish law.

Should Gulliver allow the bribes? Click reply to have your say


Previous MMDs: What should Homer & Marge do about the loss of Sky?, Grant's been overpaid, should he keep it?

threadbanner.gif
«13

Comments

  • TCR_2
    TCR_2 Posts: 3 Newbie
    This sounds like a very thinly veiled analogy to BAe systems and a certain middle eastern kingdom.

    The fact is, that if it's illegal, then you should be prosecuted. Once you start allowing corruption - because that's what we're talking about here - it's the thin edge of the wedge, it will only get worse, resulting in honest hard working companies losing out to companies who, if prepared to bribe, are probably breaking the law in other ways.

    I was amazed that Tony, er, I mean Gulliver even had the power to call off an investigation of this type. Isn't there supposed to be a separation of power between the executive and the justice system?

    Whiter than white? Shame on you Gulliver Blair.
  • geralddlp
    geralddlp Posts: 31 Forumite
    I think we should get real, I'm not even going to bother with the analogy,
    do you think other countries would have these high morals ? nope, the french would be waiting in the wings to sell mirages to the saudis, and if not them then the soviet union, or the americans, the bribes will still get paid, and the only people loosing out will be the british workers.

    Gulliver Blair did the right thing, this is typical of the british need to seem to always play by the unwritten rules. No one died, it's saudi money, negotiated by sauidi royals, who want a kick back in their own money. Dress it up as funding for private jets or whatever else you want. Call it gifts or corporate hospitality if you want, but for goodness sake, business is a battle. Don't make the British companies fight with one hand tied behind their back. People that I know in Europe laugh at this, just as they do when there is an outcry because a minister has slept with his secretary. This is the way these big deals are done, the amounts are peanuts compared to the £40BN deal,
  • Targanielle
    Targanielle Posts: 33 Forumite
    If it's against Anblish law, then those who break the law should be prosecuted.

    If it happened within Anblica that bribery had secured one company a contract over another, there would be no question whether prosecution took place or not. It should make no difference if the bribery goes to a Lilliputian.
  • njf_3
    njf_3 Posts: 14 Forumite
    There are arguments for and against condoning bribery in such cases: the arguments for are practical/realistic and the arguments against are moral/idealistic. If you value consistency, though, you should take exactly the same stance on cash for honours (and lucrative government contracts). See The Corruption of Tony Blair: Britain’s Watergate? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6382) .

    And then there's the role of the US military-industrial-political complex in the war in Iraq. It's a filthy world...
  • JayD
    JayD Posts: 693
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm ... moral high ground versus sound economy. Nar not that simple!

    I think if it is necessary for a democracy to comply with the corrupt way another country trades in order to obtain important deals for the economic stability of your own country, then that decision should be made democratically and openly. But then it wasn't just Lillipution palms that were being greased - was it?

    It is as much the deceitful, secretive way in which the deals were struck, as the bribery and corruption of the deals themselves, that proves we - er sorry Anblica - are not a democracy at all.

    But I don't think that is news to any of us!
  • oly2c
    oly2c Posts: 51 Forumite
    I think we should get real, I'm not even going to bother with the analogy,
    do you think other countries would have these high morals ? nope, the french would be waiting in the wings to sell mirages to the saudis, and if not them then the soviet union, or the americans, the bribes will still get paid, and the only people loosing out will be the british workers.

    Gulliver Blair did the right thing, this is typical of the british need to seem to always play by the unwritten rules. No one died, it's saudi money, negotiated by sauidi royals, who want a kick back in their own money. Dress it up as funding for private jets or whatever else you want. Call it gifts or corporate hospitality if you want, but for goodness sake, business is a battle. Don't make the British companies fight with one hand tied behind their back. People that I know in Europe laugh at this, just as they do when there is an outcry because a minister has slept with his secretary. This is the way these big deals are done, the amounts are peanuts compared to the £40BN deal,
    This says it all. We can't take a moral high ground when our competitors have no such scruples
    if i had known then what i know now
  • jud!th
    jud!th Posts: 126 Forumite
    bribery's wrong. The fact that people do it doesn't make it right.

    My friend who works as a missionary in a middle eastern country doesn't pay bribes, and now the police have given up arresting him on weird bases to get him to bribe them to release him - they know he doesn't pay bribes. I know that doesn't work for everyone. But it's still wrong to ask for, pay or condone bribes.

    J
    x
  • bunking_off
    bunking_off Posts: 1,264 Forumite
    oly2c wrote: »
    This says it all. We can't take a moral high ground when our competitors have no such scruples

    Absolutely correct. And we should also note that the particular laws making it illegal for an Anblican company to offer such bungs was only introduced after said company gave the money to the Lilliputian go-between. Applying laws retrospectively is a nonsense and incredibly dangerous precedent.
    I really must stop loafing and get back to work...
  • scrooge678
    scrooge678 Posts: 17 Forumite
    What do people understand by the word "morals"?
    Surely it means the principles by which you live and your sense of right and wrong - they are not morals if they are negotiable according to what the opposition is doing, in which case they are just good ideas.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards