Philosophical Questions: Power

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?


No. The quote is: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." That's a robust pattern, not a guarantee.

I myself put it differently: Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals -- and what it reveals is that most people are secretly assholes.

This is simple to observe. The main effect of power is to insulate people from the consequences of their actions. So what you see them doing is what they always would've done if they thought they could get away with it. Some people are still good and kind. But most reveal a formerly hidden penchant for obnoxious and abusive behavior. Similarly, many people indulge in luxuries, but some use power as a tool to fix more or bigger problems. Sure most rich people are assholes, but not 100% of them. There are always those who are just plain decent human beings, who use their wealth and power in an attempt to make the world a better place.

Comments

[arlie]

I disagree. I think power actively corrupts, because you have tend to have different interactions - and different information - when powerful. Some people will try to curry favor. Some will tell you what they think you want to hear. And you won't experience various down sides personally, so are less likely to be aware of unintended consequences that primarily affect the less powerful. Including unintended consequences of your use of your power.

Some people are more resistant than others. The worst were already assholes before they became powerful. The best are aware of the downsides and risks, and actively work to mitigate them, or honestly follow some kind of moral code that has them doing what they'd do if they were aware of the risks. But they still get used to causing collateral damage, not to mention their mistakes tending to have wider impact. And precious few humans want to look their mistakes and collateral damage in the eye - so they tend to ignore them, eagerly abetted by ambitious sycophants.

[see_also_friend]

>>I disagree. I think power actively corrupts, because you have tend to have different interactions - and different information - when powerful.<<

It may be possible to mitigate this by staying incognito or anonymous, though that is admittedly easier for some types of power (ex: the famous, eccentric artist) than others (ex: world leaders).

>>But they still get used to causing collateral damage, not to mention their mistakes tending to have wider impact.<<

To be fair, we all cause some level of collateral damage to something just by existing. Though more power does tend to lead to a wider impact, both positive and negative.

[see_also_friend]

I would say that it doesn't always corrupt, but that is a frequent enough outcome that giving anyone absolute power is a bad idea.

I will also add the caveat that being raised with absolute power tends to cause different problems than receiving absolute power in adulthood. There are many, many historical cases of powerful people being raised basically as gods and then being unable to cope with the universe telling them no - or alternately, doing really dumb stuff.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I would say that it doesn't always corrupt, but that is a frequent enough outcome that giving anyone absolute power is a bad idea.<<

That's a good way to put it.

>> I will also add the caveat that being raised with absolute power tends to cause different problems than receiving absolute power in adulthood.<<

Definitely. Like any other dangerous thing, power has to be introduced gradually. Kids don't even grasp the concept of ethics until around 7-8, and it takes a lot longer for them to understand and apply it consistently. So they need to work through safe choices ("Do you want to wear your blue shirt or your green shirt?"), then meaningful but harmless ones ("Do you want to take gymnastics or soccer?"), and eventually risky ones ("If you want to drive a car, you need to take Driver's Ed first; otherwise you can learn how the mass-transit system works.").

>> There are many, many historical cases of powerful people being raised basically as gods and then being unable to cope with the universe telling them no - or alternately, doing really dumb stuff.<<

I can't think of any examples of that ending well. It seems to impair healthy development.

Re: Thoughts

[see_also_friend]

>>...and eventually risky ones ("If you want to drive a car, you need to take Driver's Ed first; otherwise you can learn how the mass-transit system works.").<<

I wasn't enthusiastic about learning to drive - the idea of driving made me nervous - but I am an American who grew up in suburbia. :/

>>I can't think of any examples of that ending well. It seems to impair healthy development.<<

What's-his-name who founded Buddhism...but that could be a Composite Character, a folktale, marketing, etc. Certainly, a story that old wouldn't have survived to the modern day with 100% accuracy and cultural comprehension, and the story is significant in part /because/ it is so unusual.

The problem seems to be that there is always some sort of boundary, even if it is only the universe smacking you with the laws of physics. Kids raised with boundaries can navigate boundaries-as-concept in adulthood. But kids raised with no boundaries grow up, and then they're like Great White Sharks: fine as long as there are no walls, but once there are you can't stop trying to swim through them and taking damage.

And sure, it is a gradient, which skews off into odd behavior at either end. Fortunately, most of us will fall somewhere in the middle - but we can still argue depending on our different experiences!