‘The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal undertakings’ is the legal definition of bribery. China is ranked position 80 out of 178 countries in terms of corruption; this vice is rampant and pervades way for the fast growing economy of the country. China is one of the most developed countries and it’s on its way to achieving the super power status and high economic growth in the next one decade. However, if bribery and corruption are allowed to continue dominating the private and the public sector, this dream of the Chinese people for their country to be the most preferred business hub will be hijacked. Few investors will be willing to invest in the country if government tenders, business licenses, and other essential business services cannot be offered unless one offers a bribe.
The Chinese government has put policies to ensure that bribery is dealt with by imposing a capital punishment to anyone who is guilty of receiving a bribe. The former railroad minister Liu Zhijun was found guilty of receiving over 20 million Yuan to approve the exclusive construction of Chinese high-speed railroad from one of the bidding contractors, Ding Shumiao. Liu Zhijun received not only millions of Yuan bribe but also hundreds of sex bribe. However, Liu’s sentence was suspended due to his contribution in the construction of the most advanced railroad system in the world. ‘The suspension came as a big shock to the general public and the world at large, people expected Liu to be locked up immediately due to his action. However, suspension of his sentencing by mere reason of what is being referred to as extraordinary contribution in the construction project’ (Wong 2014)
Kant and Mill have different thoughts on bribery base on the principle of utility from Mill and categorical imperative from Kant. Based on utilitarianism, Mill would accept bribery although it is law-breaking as long as it maximizes the benefits of the majority. However, according to Kant’s “categorical imperative”, bribery is wrong because this behavior breaks the law. Kant does not care about the consequences of bribery. As long as the process is not legitimate, it should be forbidden.
The principle of utility from Mill is to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain: “greatest good with the greatest number”.
“If I am asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account” (Mill 8)
For Mill, the utilitarian idea of duty or action is defined based on the promotion of happiness. There are two kinds of utilities: direct and indirect. When we act differently from our duties, we follow the direct utilitarianism, which the act utilitarianism is applied. According to the act utilitarianism, “an act is right in so far as its consequences for the general happiness are at least as good as any alternative available to the agent.” It requires us to act with the best consequences regardless of moral rules or principles. In contrast, the rule utilitarianism states that “an act is right insofar as it conforms to a rule whose acceptance value for the general happiness is at least great as any alternative rule available to the agent”, which requires us to act with the best consequences under existed rules and concepts. Therefore, Liu’s act of bribery would be accepted by Mill if it were based on Mill’s act utilitarianism.
Liu Zhijun was not justified to receive any favors so that he can award a tender to a contractor, contrary to Mill’s rule utilitarianism the general good must always prevail over the evil all the time. I feel that individuals must consider their choice of action in the long run rather than focusing on immediate gratification. Liu had the mandate to weigh the consequences of receiving a bribe and the adverse effects the people can face if the project is substandard. The bribe may have been offered because the contractor had the knowledge that his firm incompetent and could not be able to win the bid. Such corruption in the society denies he best people chances to deliver quality work and rewards incompetent people who deliver cheap quality thereby causing the public a lot of losses and accidents as the case of the railroad
The fact that Liu was found guilty and his sentence suspended in the full glare of the Chinese people and the world bears the question as to whether the government of china is ready to fight totally with bribery. This incident paint a very grim picture in the mind of everybody who was following the case, the suspension of the sentence can be interpreted as the reluctance of the government to obey the rule of the law and favor people depending on their status in the society. Liu is known to have friends in the current government, and the suspension of his sentence may be interpreted as a strategy by his influential friends to get him out of the hook. This paints a very bad picture in the families of those who have lost their family members in the numerous accidents that have happened along the railroad. In a society where justice and the rule of law does not prevail does not prevail cannot achieve full economic development because economic development goes beyond economic growth and examines people’s quality of life, justice system, citizens general attitude on how they are governed and so on. Therefore, if the Chinese citizens have doubts about how justice is administered, then China cannot be defined as developed (Shen 2013)
Liu received bribe from bidding contractor and gave her the approval of the high-speed railroad program. This is utter corruption that needs to be punished rather than condoning such acts. Liu had the mandate to apply transparency in all his dealings being a respected member of the society and the Chinese government for that matter. This was a total failure for a person tasked and had a mandate to ensure that the transport ministry gave out tenders in the most cleanly and transparent way. The numerous accidents that have happened may be as a result of poor quality of the railroad. This is another reason bribery should be punished and condemned in the strongest terms possible since as for this case benefited the few and affected the majority. The effects of these accidents to the economy and the families affected are far much more and cannot be equated to any bribe of any value.
If we allow ourselves to be led by greed, corruption and bribery then we cannot say that we civilized, if we concentrate on individualism and personal gain then our societies will always lag behind in terms of quality service delivery, economic development and transparency. Kant discourages hypothetical imperative because morality is not an instruction for our actions to achieve certain goals; it is a command of what we ought and ought not to do regardless of our desires. Liu, in line with Kant’s categorical imperative, had to precede the standard bidding procedure and choose the one that could best finish the high-speed rail program because the law required him to do so.
Liu’s bribery behavior is not supported by either categorical or hypothetical imperative because Kant would believe such action is immoral. Hypothetical imperative would warn Liu not to receive a bribe if he does not want to go to jail; categorical imperative would command Liu not to be bribed because the law forbids him to do so. Mill is a consequentialist. He evaluates the consequence of an action rather than the action itself. As long as the consequence meets his “greatest good for the greatest number”, the action that leads to the consequence is right. However, this is not the right direction to take. Every action that we take or the decision that we make should always be pegged on whether we are doing the right thing or the wrong thing. There is no black and white, if an action is wrong in the eyes of the law then we cannot justify it cannot be justified otherwise.
Kant’s philosophy partially contradicts with what we ought to reason and act, his argument states that the behavior itself matters more than the consequence. He believes that the consequence is limited, but the good has to be unlimited. The good and moral worth have to be absolute and unconditional. I agree with him that the good actions should always supersede the evil, but we have to consider the consequences of our actions as a society. Bribery is not universally accepted therefore it is considered as an irrational action. Kant is not interested in the outcome of the bribery whether it leads to a positive consequence or not, the behavior itself should be forbidden. The law requires Liu to perform the duty he is assigned to instead of abusing it for personal interests. Kant thinks the behavior of bribery is immoral because it disobeys the universal law. If everyone in the universe accepts bribery as a rational behavior, then the government will no longer carryout legitimate procedures, the law will be ignored, and ultimately the country will be in chaos.
The rate of corruption in China is spurring at a very high rate. Sooner or later if this trend is allowed to continues, then it will be out of control, the penalty in China for bribery is sentence to death. But even though the penalty is serious, governors commit bribery because although they are caught, they leave a considerable amount of fortune to their families. Bribery is a felony because it disrupts the order of the government. Although Mill has a different opinion with Kant on judging an action, bribery is an irrational behavior. For Mill’s consequentialism, sacrificing the minority to promote the happiness of the majority is reasonable. As long as the consequences maximize utility, the bribe itself is insignificant. For Kant’s deontological ethics, “ let the result be what it may” . (Kant 30) We cannot commit bribery because the law commands us not to. And this is what Kant called morality. Both Mill’s principle of utility and Kant’s categorical imperative are in a limited sense that both action and the consequence are essential. They consist of a set of behavior, which means one cannot live without another. If either part of the action is irrational, then this whole behavior including the outcome is inadvisable.
I honestly believe that bribery is wrong no matter how you look at the situation, it may benefit an individual in the short run but its consequences come back to punish the individual involved. As the case of Liu, he may have benefited from the entire money and sex bribe that he was offered, but his actions came to haunt him later, and he is now facing a death sentence. His actions will make lose everything that he has worked for in all the years, tarnish his name and cost him his life. I honestly have the opinion that nothing can be equated with the value of life so no matter how much Liu received or gained, by facing a death sentence, and then all that will be lost.. Based on utilitarianism, Mill would be okay with the bribery incident in China although it is law breaking as long as it maximizes the benefits of the majority. According to Mill’s argument, the act is acceptable if and only if it is beneficial to the general public or the majority in a group.Liu’s actions benefited only one individual. This contradicts the Mill’s utilitarianism maxim; the bribery incident may be the cause numerous accidents that have happened on the railroad. These accidents not only make families lose their loved ones, but they also rob the country important workforce and talent.
Leaders are a true reflection of the society’s beliefs, values, and morality and therefore they should always act and make decisions that represent what the society believes in. ‘When few representatives of the people act in manner that breaks the law or contradict what the society or the country in that matter believes in, then they should be ready to face the consequences’ (Cassin 2008)
As a society if we condone act like bribery and corruption our future will be grim and the next generation will continue practicing what the society taught them. The marred by corruption cannot hold the test of time, it is ticking time bomb that will explode at any time. Therefore, bribery and corruption should be discouraged if China needs to achieve its economic development growth and world superpower status in the next decade.. Liu Zhijun may be unfaithful by creating fraud in railroad safety statistics and creates a deficit in Ministry of Railways; he needs to face the full force of the law which will also act as lesson to other public officers who may be engaging in similar corruption activities. The government of China should always ensure that the rule of law prevails to every citizen no regardless of their gender, tribe or social status.
Therefore am on the opinion that Liu’s acts should be punished to discourage such acts in the public and private sectors in China or any other country.
Work Cited
Shen, Enwei. Commercial Bribery in China: Analysis and Countermeasures. , 2013. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and J M. D. Meiklejohn. The Critique of Pure Reason. Raleigh, N.C: Alex
Catalogue, 1990. Internet resource.
Mill, John S. Utilitarianism. Raleigh, N.C: Alex Catalogue, 1990. Internet resources.
Keating, H R. F. Bribery, Corruption Also. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999. Print.
Wong, Edward. "China's Railway Minister Is Stripped of His Post amid a Corruption
Investigation The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2011. Web. 10 Apr.
2014. Web.
Cassin, Richard L. Bribery Abroad: Lessons from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Morrisville, N.C: Lulu.com, 2008. Print.
