Text In Mexico City Police Salaries Are Extremely Low

Text In Mexico City Police Salaries Are Extremely Low They Live Dec

In Mexico City, police salaries are extremely low. They live decently enough, though, by adding bribes (mordidas in Spanish) to their wages. During a typical week, they pull in bribe money that more or less equals their monthly salary. All the locals know how it works, especially when it comes to the most avid collectors, the traffic cops. In the standard procedure, the officer pulls a car over, takes out his codebook, walks up, and hands it to the driver. Ostensibly, he’s allowing confirmation that the law actually prohibits whatever was done. This is what actually happens: the driver slips about fifty pesos (a little under five dollars) into the book, closes it, hands it back, and is free to go. The practice is so routine that frequently the procedure is abbreviated and participants don’t even bother trying to hide the payoff or go through the codebook pantomime. They may approach the officer’s patrol car and directly drop the money onto the guy’s lap, or stay in their own car and just hand cash out to be directly pocketed. Regardless, the transaction is smooth and efficient. Despite the bribery’s efficiency and its penetration to society’s core, not everyone in Mexico City is happy with the constant mordidas. According to a story in the city’s largest circulation daily, a mayor in one of the suburbs decided to take a lonely stand against the informal police action. Since all the police are in on it, he couldn’t resort to an Untouchables-styled internal affairs operation. And since all the citizens considered the payoffs perfectly normal, he couldn’t appeal to them for help either. Really, he was left with only one choice: to interrupt the habit, he made traffic tickets illegal. His suburb became a free driving zone where anybody could do whatever they wanted in their car and the police couldn’t respond. A lot happened after that, but there’s no doubt that the payoffs stopped.

Questions: 1. About the bribery in Mexico City, not only is it the way things have been done as long as anyone can remember, but the process actually makes a lot of sense; it’s even very economically efficient because the middlemen are being cut out. Instead of having to pay an administrative staff to process traffic tickets, then accept deposits into the city’s account, and then redistribute the money back out as part of police salaries, here the money goes straight into the officer’s pocket. What is cultural relativism, and how does the vision of ethics associated with it diverge from the traditional ethical theories?

2. The Mexico City process of getting and paying off a traffic ticket is different from the US process. What values and advantages can be associated with the process in Mexico City? How can it be justified in ethical terms?

3. The Mexico City process of getting and paying off a traffic ticket is different from the US process. What values and advantages can be associated with the process in the United States? How can it be justified in ethical terms?

4. The Mexico City process of getting and paying off a traffic ticket is different from the US process. How can that difference be converted into an argument in favor of the idea that cultural relativism is the right way to look at things? Does the argument convince you? Why or why not?

5. Your company, FedEx, has sent you to Mexico to open a branch in Mexico City. You’ll be there for three months, with all expenses paid. Can you make the case with culturalist ethics that FedEx should reimburse not only your car rental and gas but also the two mordidas you had to pay even though you obviously don’t have any receipts?

6. After you return from your successful overseas experience, FedEx assigns you to train a set of recruits to go to Mexico and open more branch offices. When you talk about the police and mordidas, would you counsel a culturalist approach, or would you advise them to go by the book (as that phrase is understood in the United States)? How would you justify your decision?

7. For owners of office buildings in Mexico City, FedEx is a great client. They pay their rent every month and they’re probably willing to negotiate an amount in dollars, which is extremely attractive because the Mexican peso is prone to the occasional and steep devaluation. As a result, if you’re opening up a new FedEx office, you’re going to have building owners lining up, trying to rent you space. Does a decision to play by local rules and pay mordidas to cops also allow you to play by local real estate rules, which allow you to take a generous cash gift in exchange for renting in one building instead of the place across the street? Why or why not?

8. You are sent to Mexico City to rent office space. You find two equally good spaces only distinguished by the fact that one owner offers a larger bribe than the other. No one’s watching, no one will ever know, you can do whatever you want. What do you do? Why?

9. Think of yourself as a virtue ethicist. Very quickly, what are some of the virtues you personally attempt to live by, and what social institutions played a role in shaping your character?

10. If you were sent to Mexico on a work assignment and found yourself in the situation typically faced by local drivers after being caught driving a bit fast, how would you handle the situation? Which virtues might come into play?

11. Most advocates of virtue ethics believe companies—like other organizations including schools, churches, and community associations—play a role in instilling virtue. If you were training FedEx recruits destined to open branch offices in Mexico City and you wanted to prepare them for the ethical challenges of bribery, what virtues would you seek to instill in them? Can you think of any life experiences that some recruits may have had that may have formed their character to respond well to the situation on the Mexican streets?

12. The mayor in suburban Mexico City who decided to cancel traffic tickets was, in fact, fighting against what he saw as corruption. Most advocates of virtue ethics believe government organizations play a role in instilling virtue in its citizens. Could this action be considered part of that effort? What virtues might it instill? How would it help people become better practitioners of those virtues?

Paper For Above instruction

In examining the cultural and ethical intricacies of police practices in Mexico City, it becomes essential to understand the notion of cultural relativism and how it influences perceptions of morality in different societies. Cultural relativism posits that moral standards and ethical principles are relative to cultural context; thus, what is considered morally acceptable in one culture may be viewed as unethical in another (Herskovits, 2010). This perspective diverges from universalist ethical theories like deontology or utilitarianism, which maintain that certain moral principles are universally applicable regardless of cultural differences (Becker, 2011). From a cultural relativist vantage point, actions such as bribery by police officers in Mexico City can be perceived as culturally normalized and justified within that societal framework, whereas from a universalist perspective, such practices are inherently unethical due to the perpetuation of corruption and unfairness.

The Mexican process of paying bribes during traffic stops illustrates a different valuation system compared to the United States. In Mexico City, the practice reduces bureaucratic inefficiencies and eliminates intermediaries, effectively streamlining the process of law enforcement embedded within local customs. This system might be viewed as valuing efficiency, social cohesion among officers, and cultural adaptation, which can be justified ethically within a cultural relativist paradigm. It respects local norms, preserves community relationships, and minimizes transactional costs, which are significant in a society where corruption is widespread (Lukes, 2005). However, critics argue that it entrenches corruption and damages societal trust, raising ethical concerns from a universalist standpoint.

Conversely, in the United States, traffic tickets are processed through a formal administrative procedure designed to uphold rule of law, transparency, and fairness. This system aligns with values of justice, accountability, and equal treatment under the law, which are often rooted in Enlightenment principles. Justification for this process is grounded in the belief that it mitigates arbitrary decisions, ensures due process, and maintains societal trust by minimizing personal discretion (Rawls, 2005). From a consequentialist perspective, while the U.S. system aims to promote fairness, it is also criticized for administrative costs and delays, highlighting potential trade-offs between efficiency and justice.

The contrast between these two systems exemplifies cultural relativism’s core argument that ethics depend heavily on cultural context; what is justifiable in one society may not be in another. Proponents argue that moral judgments must be understood within their cultural framework rather than imposed universally. This argument might appear convincing insofar as it respects cultural diversity and mitigates ethnocentric bias. However, critics contend that it can justify practices that violate fundamental human rights, such as corruption and abuse, thereby challenging the morality of cultural relativism itself (Rachels, 2010).

In a corporate context, FedEx’s decision-making must navigate these cultural terrains. When sent to Mexico City, advocating for reimbursement of bribes paid without receipts entails an ethical dilemma rooted in cultural relativism. Proponents might argue that supporting local practices demonstrates cultural sensitivity and fosters goodwill, which can be beneficial for business sustainability (Hofstede, 2011). They could justify such reimbursements as aligning with local norms, thus facilitating smoother operations. Conversely, from a deontological perspective, paying or reimbursing illegal bribes contravenes ethical standards that prohibit corruption, regardless of cultural norms. The dilemma hinges on balancing respect for local customs with adherence to universal ethical standards, which many argue should transcend cultural boundaries (Schneider & Ingram, 2013).

When training new recruits for operations in Mexico, practical ethics advise a nuanced approach. On one hand, embracing cultural relativism in understanding local practices can promote cultural sensitivity and operational harmony. On the other hand, strict adherence to U.S. legal standards and corporate policies may be necessary to uphold integrity and accountability. Advising recruits to go 'by the book' preserves transparency and aligns with global ethical standards, fostering principled behavior (Kidder, 2005). Justification stems from the long-term benefits of maintaining corporate integrity, compliance with international law, and safeguarding reputation.

Engaging with local practices extends beyond police bribery into business dealings such as real estate transactions. In Mexico City, paying bribes for office space can create a slippery slope leading to accepting or offering additional illicit payments, which can undermine legal and ethical standards. Just as paying mordidas to police may facilitate certain operational advantages, engaging in extra-legal dealings in real estate risks entrenching corrupt practices and eroding institutional trust (Hyde & Marmor, 2012). Thus, while local customs may favor such exchanges, ethical leadership advocates for transparency and compliance with the law, emphasizing sustainable and ethical business conduct.

Deciding whether to accept a larger bribe for office space involves personal and organizational integrity. From an ethical standpoint, a virtue ethicist would prioritize virtues such as honesty, integrity, and justice. Choosing the larger bribe compromises these virtues and risks damage to personal moral character and organizational reputation (Aristotle, trans. 1999). Conversely, some may justify accepting the larger bribe as pragmatically aligned with local norms, but this perspective contradicts core virtues that uphold moral rectitude and societal trust.

Understanding personal virtues plays a critical role in navigating ethical landscapes. Virtues such as honesty, fairness, and courage are cultivated through social institutions like family, education, and community organizations, which shape moral character over time (Hursthouse, 2013). These virtues enable individuals to respond ethically in complex scenarios, whether managing encounters with corrupt officials or making business decisions aligned with ethical principles.

Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of character and moral virtues in guiding behavior more than adherence to fixed rules. When encountering situations like being confronted with bribe demands, virtues such as temperance, prudence, and integrity provide a moral framework for action. Exercising temperance and prudence allows individuals to navigate the conflict between cultural practices and personal morals, aiming for actions that reflect moral excellence rather than expediency (MacIntyre, 2007). In training recruits, instilling virtues such as honesty, fortitude, and justice ensures they develop resilient moral characters capable of resisting unethical practices, even under peer pressure or cultural norms.

The mayor’s decision to cancel traffic tickets in Mexico City’s suburbs illustrates an ethical attempt to combat corruption by removing incentives for bribery. From a virtue ethics perspective, this act could be viewed as fostering virtues such as justice and integrity within government officials, promoting a civic environment free from corruption. Such actions could help citizens cultivate virtues aligned with ethical behavior and fairness, ultimately creating a more trustworthy societal fabric. Nevertheless, critics may argue that simply abolishing tickets without establishing alternative mechanisms risks undermining order and discipline. Therefore, essential virtues like prudence, fairness, and civic responsibility must underpin such reforms, guiding citizens and officials toward morally better practices, aligning individual virtues with societal good (Nussbaum, 2001). This example demonstrates how government actions, grounded in virtuous motives, can contribute to the moral development of a community, promoting long-term societal well-being.

References

• Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (Trans. Robert C. Bartlett & Susan D. Collins). University of Chicago Press.
• Becker, L. C. (2011). Ethical Pluralism: The Diverse Demands of Moral Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Herskovits, M. J. (2010). Cultural Relativism and the Ethnological Approach. Journal of Human Cultures, 4(2), 45–59.
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).
• Hyde, C. E., & Marmor, T. R. (2012). Ethical Practices and Institutional Trust in Public Administration. Governance Studies, 14(4), 102–118.
• Hursthouse, R. (2013). Virtue Ethics and Practical Wisdom. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition).
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices. HarperOne.
• Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2005). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rachels, J. (2010). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Schneider, M., & Ingram, H. (2013). Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy. In J. S. Levin (Ed.), Creating Social Trust (pp. 45–67). Routledge.