Well the whole thing is quite subjective matter. What you consider bad and good...immoral and moral. What is considered good and bad differs a lot between different different cultures and people. I used to think that still there's some universal moral principles.... that would be common for every human being like for example that killing/murder is wrong and immoral. Well people are good at finding "morally correct" excuses to break that rule... People get killed even by their own families because they want to live different life than old traditions command, people get killed because of their sexuality, their choices of love or because they're rape victims and society as whole considers those people who were killed as morally corrupt and their murderers as virtuous/honorful people. Honor killings are just one example... Some diehard orthodox Jews consider you morally corrupt if you have contact with your husband while you're menstruating or if you work during Sunday. Diehard Amish consider you morally corrupt if you use modern technology without good reason. Saudi Grand-Mufti considers you morally corrupt if you're woman and do sports. So the whole defination for morally corrupt is damn subjective thing.

If you are morally corrupt, you do not have good (or you may actually have bad morals). Morals are our understanding of good and bad. For example if you are morally corrupt you may think that it is ok to steal from the poor or take sweets from children, speed up your car when you see an old person crossing the road...think it is ok to kill someone...the list is endless.

Hi! jura we can say know who is morally corrupt..well we all know the answer to this @romulus,zaina,kayleigh and multani i stand for what i am going to say 'It's you john your totaly morally corrupted" Roi g "the duffy duck"

OUCH! I was simplifying it so people would understand the idea of morals - but now I see the asker is actually native English - my mistake! Although to be honest MY interpretation of "morally corrupt" is my own interpretation based upon my own morals. All of the things I stated, I believe to be wrong, as is true for my life today, in the societies that I have lived in. If you want to take it to the next level we can talk about the Iraq war (but people are very passionate about this and I can debate all year)...was it morally acceptable to try to "liberalise" the people of Iraq because we (in the West) see Sadam Hussain's regime as oppressive? Is it EVER acceptable to push our definitions of what is right and wrong on other people. Are we just too damn nosy and interfering for our own good? For example there is of course the debate around whether terrorists are really freedom fighters. To take another tact, when we meet new indiginous tribes does anyone ever stop to consider that even just seeing the helicopter flying over might have ruined their way of living...that they don't WANT any contact with the rest of the world - or even want to have the choice to decide whether they do or not? No we force them to choose (most of the time the choice is not even a choice!) Is that not morally corrupt even by our own definitions of "Freedom of Choice"...

hello jura, kayleigh & zaina have mere understanding of what 'morally corrupt' is. I could argue no more. maybe you can pinpoint now who is 'morally corrupt' among those who answered your question - - - - and I will definitely agree with you.... :) romulus (the barbarian?)