Which is better?

[Derek Vande Brake]

Which is better - an honest and upstanding person, but who is clueless, and therefore advocates plans that won't work with the best of intentions; or a mildly corrupt person who knows things, and therefore advocates plans that will work, but for selfish reasons?

Person one will make things worse for everyone equally, thinking they are doing the right thing. Person two will make things a little better for everyone, and a lot better for themselves, knowing they are gaming the system to do it.

[Pan]

What does being mildly corrupt entail?

[Simon Legrande]

The first person makes things worse and the second person makes things better. The obvious choice should be the second person, intentions are irrelevant.

Having said that, this only applies in a given hypothetical situation where these are the only two choices.

[Derek Vande Brake]

Pan wrote:

What does being mildly corrupt entail?

Somewhat user-defined, but more on the darker side of neutral rather than actually evil.

[Queen Moragan]

One will make things worse for everyone.

One will make things a little better for everyone.

Can you not see which option is better?

[Crayon]

Not enough information is actually given, but #1 is probably superior.

[Jiggy]

I think the answer depends a lot on what sort of career/role the person has.

It also depends a lot on whether the people recognize these descriptions of themselves as being true.

[captain yesterday]

Dave's not here man!

I realize that's a stupid answer, but c'mon, that's a stupid question :-)

[Lamontius]

shampoo is better

[Simon Legrande]

captain yesterday wrote:

Dave's not here man!

I realize that's a stupid answer, but c'mon, that's a stupid question :-)

No, man! This is Dave!

[captain yesterday]

Dave's not here man!

[Orville Redenbacher]

Lamontius wrote:

shampoo is better

by head shoulders better?

[Scooter Libby]

It's butter.

And there was no corruption mild or otherwise when my master ruled the nation.