LAW, MORALS AND CORRUPTIONAL BEHAVIOR

LAW, MORALS AND CORRUPTIONAL BEHAVIOR[1]

Ronald Z. Titahelu

 

Introduction

The discussion of law, morality and corrupt behavior is carried out using the thoughts of HLA Hart. Hart's thoughts are based on the thesis of human survival which is based on the fact that most people want to live most of the time (Hart-Khozim, 2011: 296). This is interesting to use in discussing law, morality and corrupt behavior because the existence of corrupt behavior in Indonesia today if added up will reach a spectacular number, thus hindering development and can even threaten the survival of the Indonesian nation and society. As a comparison, I also use the views of Michael Sandel, a political philosopher who is now very well known in the United States.

In my view, following Sandel's (2009: 245) description, moral awareness is prioritized based on national interests, surpassing pressures based on religious principles and social morals. Therefore, it needs to be seen as the primary doctrine in the organization of social and state life in Indonesia, which is built on the foundation of Pancasila and implemented based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.  

On the other hand, it can also be understood that in a pluralistic society, a person or group of people can put forward their opinions based on their own moral beliefs, but in political life it is not appropriate to reject different moral beliefs but it is necessary to obtain shared values ​​that are national interests that are understood by the entire Indonesian nation and society, both morally and in achieving social justice. The resonance of political rhetoric that is manifested in the law, whatever it is, also stems from morals that emerge personally or from within the group.  

Everywhere, including in Indonesia, pressure against corrupt behavior is heavily influenced by morality rooted in particular views, both religious and social, rooted in the ideals of certain groups within society. This is evident in the opinions and criticisms expressed personally through print and electronic media. This reflects national interests. However, it can be argued that the morals and ideals presented only emphasize vague obligations to comply. Therefore, references to such morality and ideals are not a measure of the validity of laws related to corruption. Laws must be valid not only because they are created by authorized institutions but also because of morality.

 

Aspiration of Neutrality

However, a morality that rejects corrupt behavior based solely on religious or group views can lead to expressions that contradict national interests when corrupt behavior is identified as a component of the group. Therefore, national interests are the ideal of neutrality in law and morals. Morality that rejects corrupt behavior is transformed into law, making it neutral toward everyone. Even though within a nation and society there are differences in group strength, intellectual ability, and speed of action, all have equal status, so neutrality is essential in dealing with corrupt behavior committed by anyone.        

 

Principles of Behavior

Based on the classical thought of Natural Law, that “there are principles of behavior waiting to be discovered by the human mind” (Hart-Khozim, 2011:287, 288), then the principle of behavior that rejects corruption is a principle discovered by the human mind. Rejection of corrupt behavior is not just a dream, because rejection of corrupt behavior is part of the general conception of the life of the materialistic universe, as well as religious life.

From everyday life, the desire to behave corruptly in the simplest amount such as doing mark-up retail purchase price of goods or additional price photocopy, to a very large amount, based on the view "If it feels good, do it", "Take something that others are also doing, as long as you can be held accountable", essentially reflects the act of self-gratification, self-preservation. Acts of self-gratification as well as acts of self-preservation, are immoral acts. Corruption as an immoral act reveals a profound truth.

 

Law as a Guide

Herein lies the meaning of anti-corruption legislation as a law of correct behavior found in the human mind. Anti-corruption legislation is a prescription, namely a guideline or formula that demands that humans behave according to established methods. Acts of self-preservation and self-gratification in a society are undesirable phenomena. Even though immoral acts of self-gratification or self-preservation can occur with vague sanctions, since there is a prescriptive law that regulates the prohibition of corruption, the prescriptive law remains law. For Kant, prescriptive law is below general law as the highest principle of morality. The highest principle of morality is essentially the highest formal principle of the will (formal principle of the will). While prescriptive law is a material principle of action (formal principles of the act) which depends on empirical goals and desires (Acton-Hardani, 2003:43, 44).

Prescriptive law as a guideline or formulation that depends on empirical or real goals and desires, stipulates that corrupt behavior is behavior that can disrupt the continuity of life together.     

 

Moral and Legal Truth

It is acknowledged that humans, as creatures endowed with free will and reason, may discover and violate prescriptive laws prohibiting corrupt behavior. However, these prescriptive laws contain fundamental truths about understanding morality and law (Hart-Khozim, 2011:291). Humans, as living creatures, always have a direction. From the concept of the purpose (teleology) of human movement, humans desire the superiority of society as a whole. This superiority for society as a whole is realized through various specific steps. Every behavior necessary to achieve this purpose is regulated in a fixed and specific manner and demonstrates the characteristics of actions to achieve the desired change or state.

Different from Hart, the desire and will to achieve excellence for the whole of society alone, according to Kant (in Sandel, 2009: 107), can be seen as pure practical reason which functions as the basis of morals (Kant in Sandel, 2009: 107, 108). Humans are rational creatures (rational beings) have the ability to act rationally, and humans are also independent creatures (autonomous beings), has the ability to act and is free to choose. Human action is based on reason. Human reason is based on moral motives for action, as an obligation (Kant in Sandel, 2009: 111). In Kant's thinking, corrupt behavior, although it is a behavior that can be chosen to be carried out, such behavior cannot be seen as a moral act. On the contrary, non-corrupt behavior is actually an obligation. So, for Kant, corrupt or non-corrupt behavior is not related to the consequences it causes, as stated by Hart.      

Viewed from this understanding of morality and law, seen from Hart's understanding, Indonesian society and nation desire excellence for themselves. This means that just as Indonesian society and nation desire a prosperous and happy life achieved together, as a result of not engaging in corrupt behavior. Conversely, for Kant, non-corrupt behavior is simply immoral behavior, without needing to consider the consequences of the behavior.

Therefore, for Hart, in addition to consciously taking steps in the areas of social, economic, and cultural welfare, specific steps that consciously limit or eliminate behaviors such as corruption that disrupt or reduce the achievement of shared prosperity and happiness. The elimination of corrupt behavior through the formulation of certain behaviors specifically in anti-corruption legislation is a human need that must be met and carried out by people in Indonesia.

In addition, there is the behavior of self-satisfaction and self-preservation which is seen as a natural need that is always present in every human being, which appears at certain times. Self-satisfaction by working hard to earn a decent income to meet the needs of life in a reasonable manner; self-preservation in the future through healthy financial investments obtained now that do not harm or endanger society or the nation, is also a natural need that needs to be recognized. Recognition of natural needs based on morals requires transformation into law.

On the other hand, for Kant (in Sandel, 2011: 117, 118)), moral motives - in the form of not committing corruption - are the highest moral principles (supreme principle of morality). Therefore, a person needs to establish laws for himself, autonomously, to avoid corrupt behavior. Starting from Kant's premise, that everything in nature works according to nature, but because humans are not physical objects subject to natural laws - the laws of physics, the laws of cause and effect, the laws of natural necessity - then submission to the law is made through the existence of laws imposed by humans themselves, which come from morals.

So, the existence of corrupt behavior is not fulfilling moral imperative which is above all else. The freedom to set aside instinctive desires, namely the desire to gain maximum benefit from corrupt behavior, is a moral obligation. Therefore, the law, in the sense of statutes, needs to force corrupt behavior to be avoided. The source of the existence of laws that require that corrupt behavior not be committed (Acton-Hardani, 2003: 98) is in moral imperative. Morally based laws, or laws of reason regarding the prohibition of corrupt behavior, are ideas that are based on the principle of reason, namely virtue (Kant in Anthon F. Susanto, 2010: 284).         

 

Legal Formulation as a Function

On the other hand, self-gratifying or self-saving actions that can cause harm or endanger the life of the nation and society as a whole, require an agreement to formulate or prescribe rules regarding behavior that eliminates corrupt behavior, as functions that lead to the achievement of common goals. Failure to fulfill these functions means failure to achieve goals, and it also means the loss of capabilities provided for humans. The failure of those authorized to supervise the fulfillment of these functions means failure to achieve the right goals of activities aimed at ensuring the common welfare and happiness of humans. Thus, the functions of law enforcement that eliminate corrupt behavior, which originate from the concept of achieving human goodness, namely welfare and common good, are developed in human reason and thought. This development leads to the statement of Hobbes and Hume, quoted by Hart-Khozim (2011: 296) that "humans are essentially unable to survive in any way without fellowship with other individuals: and that fellowship will never take place without respect for the laws of equality and justice." 

Without the content of survival, laws and morals have no meaning. This means that humans would have no reason to voluntarily obey any rules (Hart, 2011:299). 

Thus, if there is a failure of the Corruption Eradication Commission, as well as police, prosecutors and courts in their efforts to eliminate corrupt behavior, even the failure of the government in this case the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and correctional institutions in limiting the movement of corrupt convicts, if seen from Hart's perspective, then it is a form of failure to achieve prosperity and the common good of the Indonesian nation and society, as a form of survival. Seen from Kant's perspective, the failure that occurs is a failure to fulfill the principle moral imperative which is the highest moral principle of humankind. Such failure causes justice to be unattainable, because the meaning of just action contained in the law, namely moral law, is based on the principle of reason in maxims (Kant in Anthon F. Susanto, 2010: 284).  

Conversely, the failure to transform the morality that rejects corrupt behavior into law is also a failure to establish and achieve the goal of collective survival. Specific formulations within certain laws that prevent collective survival, or allow for the rejection of examination of corrupt behavior, must be ignored based on moral sources that explicitly reject corrupt behavior. Such neglect does not negate the supremacy of law, but rather upholds law and morality for collective survival.    

 

Self-Restraint in Law and Morals

Self-restraint is indeed necessary to prevent corruption. However, limited self-restraint can lead to aggressive corruption. Group interests aimed at strengthening their ability to control resources tend to drive the aggressiveness of one or more individuals in corruption, through intricate and intricate networks of cooperation. Understanding, devotion, and loyalty to group interests cannot and will not be achieved independently of the strengthening of the ability of one or more individuals within the group to control resources. They cannot be imagined as independent of particular beliefs or loyalties to groups or individual political concepts.

The ability to refrain from corrupt behavior essentially requires a tolerant attitude toward law and morality aimed at achieving a just and righteous shared existence. Kant views this ability to refrain as a perfect obligation (Acton-Hardani, 2003, 45), namely an obligation that cannot be refused.

 

Conclusion

Corrupt behavior, seen from a different perspective, remains undesirable behavior. Law in the sense of statutes still needs to refer to moral principles, both with empirical implications in the meaning of justice as stated by Hart, as well as non-empirical implications in the meaning of justice as stated by Kant. Borrowing the thoughts of Pascal and Montaigne (in Anthon F. Susanto, 2010:285), "justice in itself can be realized only if justice has the power or violence to be enforced", then laws and morals that reject corruption must be enforced without looking at who the perpetrator is or whatever their role in the life of society and the state of Indonesia.

 

 

Reading:

Acton, HB-Muhammad Hardani (translator), 2003, Basics of Moral Philosophy: Elaboration of Immanuel Kant's Ethical Thought, Pustaka Eureka, Jl. Jemur, Wonosari Lebar 24C 60237, Surabaya

Hart, HLA,-M. Khozim (translator), 2011, Legal Concept, Nusa Media Publisher, PO Box 147 Ujungberung, Bandung, 5th printing

Sandel, Michael, Justice: what's the right thing to do?, 2009, Penguin Books, first published in the United States of America by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Susanto, Anthon F., 2010, Non-Systematic Legal Science: Philosophical Foundations of the Development of Indonesian Legal Science, Genta Publishing, PO BOX 1095 YK 55000, Yogyakarta, 1st edition.