An article published by El Tiempo here says that the average chibchombian knows that incurring in a certain behavior (i.e. bribing a police officer to scape a ticket) is wrong, but nevertheless a good percentage of the population says they would do it, when presented with the dilemma. A grandmother would call it "the dismemberment of the moral fiber that holds the nation together", and would only see it as a sign of the forth coming apocalypse.
I myself, am no stranger to this kinds of conduct. I have not bribed a police officer, but presented with the perspective of a 350K fine, plus two days of wandering through bureaucracy to recover a vehicle from the patios (or paying a middle man to do it) I would probably do it. The question is, then, where to stop? I know I wouldn't kill somebody on cold blood. The problem is that the threshold that morally (in the latin, personal sense of the word) restricts our actions is no longer given by religion, but as a consequence of a personal choice. I think religion lost this power because of the imposibly high threshold it set. Shamefully, since almost everything was outlawed (from saying the earth revolves around the sun, to premarital sexual relationships, to cursing, to thinking bad thoughts) so there was no clear boundary between being "a little outside" and being "totally fucked up".
That looks like an anticlerical rant that might belong somewhere else, but as this blogs states it is print $self so these are just the toughts of the day
No comments:
Post a Comment