Aurel Kolnai (1900-1973), a little known Hungarian philosopher, published in 1929 a very interesting essay on disgust, which has just been republished. In this work, the author tries to clarify what this peculiar hostile feeling consists of, while distinguishing between different types of physical disgust and moral disgust. Among the latter is that peculiar form of falsehood which we call "corruption". Most of us recognize, Kolnai argues, that equating the highest values with the value of money is "dirty" and therefore disgusting. This equating is first and foremost a falsehood, a lie, a deception, since genuine values such as sincerity, friendship, selfless concern for public service, etc. are presented as "masks to cover up the interest of money". Whoever discovers this subject of "dirt" experiences a special repugnance for it.

However, this does not seem to be the most serious aspect of this "dirtiness". Rather, the philosopher points out, it is based on the special capacity of excessive economic interest to undermine other values and to put itself in their place. This excessive eagerness is gradually introduced into the social fabric and anesthetizes the capacity to identify authentic values such as honor, the public good, etc. These are evicted to give way to the value of money, but somehow they survive as masks, in a weakened form, coexisting with the - only apparent - brightness of corruption.

The interesting thing is that not only our reason but also our feelings rebel against such a deplorable phenomenon as corruption. By feeling repugnance towards it, we reject its negative value and, at the same time, we defend ourselves against it. It would seem, then, that such a feeling plays an important ethical role.

Unfortunately, the analyses I have just outlined seem to be still valid almost a hundred years after they were published. It would seem that on many occasions, or on some few but very striking occasions, the excessive interest in one's own benefit has displaced much higher values. Easy enrichment -even at the expense of the impoverishment of others- seems to have been especially appreciated, implicitly or explicitly, in our societies.

It is true that this is not a new phenomenon and that its causes are very complex. Many say that there has always been corruption and that the difference is that today we know more about it. This is probably true. What is certain is that the causes of this phenomenon are complex. The temptation to be discouraged is great and sometimes it is not easy to resist it. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to try to overcome the repugnance for corruption by maintaining that it is a manifestation of moral fanaticism and that the only thing repugnant is the repugnance itself.

However, this - in Kolnai's words - is "something in itself full of meaning, legitimate, which, of course, if it enjoys uncontrolled free passage, can obstruct the way to many things of value in life, and prevent us from doing many noble works, and, therefore, needs examination, polishing and frankness". It makes sense, then, to resist the moral anesthesia that tends to silence our conscience by trying to free it from reactions that are rooted in the depths of human nature.

But it is also true that it would be counterproductive to remain entrenched in disgust in the face of corruption. Paradoxically, the phenomenon of repugnance or disgust contains an element of reaction against its object and, at the same time, a kind of "engulfment" in it. It could happen, then, that disgust in the face of corruption leaves us paralyzed. That, I think, would be a mistake that would prevent us from working positively for what is authentically valuable.

Today more than ever it is urgent to harmonize a profound rejection - of both reason and feelings - of corruption and a clear awareness that money - although of great importance - is not the most important thing of all.