We are following the course Moral Foundations of Politics, organized by political scientist and professor at Yale University, Yan Shapiro. One of the main issues of the course is what ensures legitimacy for governments? When we should obey them or when we should not obey them? There, Shapiro refers to the Adolf Eichmann case, a Nazi war criminal kidnapped by the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, while hiding in Argentina, "tried" and sentenced to death by the State of Israel, in a summary judgment. Even in the case of a war criminal responsible for the final settlement that has wiped out thousands of Jews, Shapiro points to several violations of rights committed by the State of Israel in this case. Early in the morning I read a text by journalist Josias de Souza, where he establishes a counterpoint between the crimes committed by the Odebrecht Construtora operators and drug traffickers whose practices seem to be more ethical than those adopted by departmental executives Of tips.
It is necessary to see very carefully how these informers will be treated, as well as under what terms these agreements were signed. If, on the one hand, society cries out for an exemplary punishment to the public men involved in the reported frauds, on the other hand, it is convenient to be severe also with these corruptors and their operators. In some cases, there are patterns of benefits that could well be questioned, such as drastic reduction of the amounts that should be restored to the treasury, as well as the modalities of compliance with their penalties. One of them received the benefit of a house arrest in a fabulous seaside mansion, possibly only with the annoyance of anklets. Also here it is necessary to understand what judgment this group of the Structure Department of Odebrecht did of themselves, with this typical of institutionalized practice in the organization. No moral judgment around these attitudes of corrupting public agents? To cause millions of dollars to the treasury? Have they never questioned the authority of those who issued these orders? Known dishonest? Have they never questioned the consequences of these acts for the citizen who paid his taxes and demanded the benefits of these public works? Were they just good managers who, in the end, also pocketed their gratifications?
The judgment of Adolf Eichmann by the Jewish state, of course, was quite compromised, for a very simple reason. He was aprioristically condemned. In these cases, there is obviously a curtailment of the defense of the accused. But it is suggested that in his defense he argued on the basis of the precepts raised above, that is to say, independently of these moral or ethical questions, he was only one who endeavored to carry out his work in the best possible way, with the aim of Get recognition from the boss. A good manager, maybe. He was transporting people to the concentration camps, but it could be stones, weapons or whatever. These things are curious. The other day, a big national businessman - now incarcerated - was being presented as a model to be followed by young executives; Giving interviews to the business magazines of a major publisher; Living a life of luxury; With carriages, dating beauties, yacht tours, and the like. The next moment, pointing out as an entrepreneur who conquered his assets through promiscuous relationships with public agents. Readers naturally know who we are referring to.
The case of Eichmann, the rise and crimes committed by the Nazis, inspired Hannah Arendt in his reflections on the trivialization of evil. Here, judging by the events narrated by executives, former executives and heirs of the construction company Odebrecht, we are facing a kind of trivialization of corruption. Difficult to know when this culture of corruption will be extirpated from our society, if at all it will be extirpated. Perhaps we can list here another element of the "impossibility" of a country called Brazil.