The purpose of this paper is to try and identify the difference between lobbying and bribery.
The Difference Between Lobbying and Bribery
Lobbying is the practice of private advocacy with the goal of influencing a governing body by promoting a point of view that is conducive to an individual's or organization's goals. Bribery is a crime implying
a sum or gift given alters the behavior of a person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person. In Black's Law Dictionary "Bribery" is defined as the offering, giving, receiving or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions as an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty.
The difference between lobbying and bribery is that lobbying is a legal form of actively supporting a cause or position while bribery involves the giving of money or other incentives to persuade somebody, in authority, to do something that is dishonest or illegal. Bribes are unmistakably considered to be unethical, but people's opinions change when seen in past situations whether they participated in offered bribes themselves or not. Persons, who did not offer bribes, judge those who offered them and those who accepted them more critically than other people.
The Utilitarian principle is seen in this way: that an action is morally right if and only if it produces more happiness for all parties concerned. This means that for any action to be right it must produce more happiness and less unhappiness overall than any other alternative action would have produced. The Utilitarianism has a consequentialist view; the only thing valuable or good is happiness. And when assessing the morality of an action they look at the consequences of that action on the happiness of any and all beings affected by that action. The two issues I see with the Utilitarian style of thinking is that: First, because a person thinks...