Case 1 we can change this case slightly by invoking

Case 1'
We can change this case slightly by invoking the possibility of serious
harm to you, your firm, or the Philippine government as a result of a
refusal to pay the bribe. Suppose, for example, that additional weeks of
delay on the dock expose the computers to damage for which your divi-
sion is financially responsible and which will seriously reduce profits. In
that case, our first question receives the requisite affirmative answer:
refusing to pay the bribe causes serious harm or loss, but this must still
be weighed against the harm or stimulus to wrongdoing uncovered by
our answers to the remaining four questions.
The second question is answered negatively, as it must be if paying the
bribe is allowable in this case. You probably do not directly cause more
harm to others than your firm is likely to suffer. However, the answers to
questions 3,4 and 5 remain the same as in the previous version of the case,
and the possibly affirmative answers to 3 and 4, in particular, continue to
provide good reasons for not paying the bribe. Although there is no simple
formula for adjudicating the conflict here, these considerations suggest
that even in the face of significant annoyance and injury, there is substan-
tial moral reason for not acquiescing to extortion.'^
Case 1"
We can take this case one step further and assume that at some point
the harm incurred by resisting involvement in bribery increases signifi-
cantly. This might be true, for example, if HAUs ability to do business
in the Philippines were threatened by its refusal to pay bribes of this sort.
Not only would this represent a substantial increment in the degree of

WHEN IS "EVERYONE'S DOING IT" A JUSTIFICATION? 83
harm experienced by the firm, but the fact that HAL's efforts are not
supported by the government suggests that its refusal to engage in brib-
ery is not significantly contributing to a reduction in bribery and extor-
tion by others. Hence, condition 4 and (we may suppose) condition 3 are
met in ways that increase the justifiability of involvement in this com-
mon but undesirable behavior.
Case 1'"
Finally, we might make one further change in the case to develop a far
more compelling justification for involvement in bribery. Imagine, now,
that instead of your firm's being a large and powerful multinational
corporation, it is a small joint partnership whose economic survival
depends on retaining a toehold in the Philippine market. Failure to pay
the bribe in this case will represent economic disaster and loss for you
and all the constituencies you represent.
Here we can give a strong affirmative answer to the first question. You
avoid serious harm or loss if you refuse to pay the bribe. The second
question is answered negatively as it must be for complicity to be allow-
able: no one is directly harmed by your bribery more than you and your
firm are by avoiding it. The third and fourth questions must also be
answered negatively, and there is good reason to think that in this case
they are. Given the pervasiveness of bribery and your firm's small size