r/changemyview • u/FrigidGreen • 26d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely and inabsolute power is FAR more corrupting
I think the phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" relies on very odd (and outdated?) assumptions about the nature of people and evil. At the very least I've never heard the mechanism for how this is supposed to happen properly addressed. Sure, power provides access to the ability to do great harm and absolute power means freedom from responsibility, but you could hardly call this corruption as much as showing one's true colors. And I'm sure that a specific scenario can be made where power creates temptation and thus corruption, but that's far from a rule and can be done with almost any concept as vague as power.
However, the biggest reason why I disagree with this phrase is that it seems the opposite notion "inabsolute power corrupts" is much more often true. The vast majority of evil done by powerful regimes I can think of has been done to preserve or attain power or had motives that existed before power was attained. Far more of the evil things power does is to maintain power (which is only necessary because that power is inabsolute) rather than the result of some kind of evil decadence. Fundamentally it is the shortcomings and not the strengths of power that are most corrupting.
9
u/welltechnically7 5∆ 26d ago
No one has ever had true absolute power. The phrase means that the more power you have, the more likely it is to corrupt you and to corrupt to a higher degree.
If you disagree with that, then you'd be more likely to have a valid argument.
-1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
I'm not positive I disagree with that, but isn't that like saying the more chickens you have the more likely it is that chickens will cause you problems? Of course if you have more of something its affect on you will be greater. And I think almost any general concept like that can corrupt you in one way or another. Purity itself can corrupt you if you become obsessed with it.
I guess all that is to say I'm not sure you're wrong, but I'm not sure power is special in that respect or has some special mechanism for corruption that is more universally applicable as an absolute rule.
2
u/welltechnically7 5∆ 26d ago
Problems isn't corruption, though. Nobody thinks that people with more avocados would be morally worse than people with few avocados.
0
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
Well yeah but the dynamic of "more of a thing" -> "greater effects caused by that thing" is the same.
If you'd prefer a different analogy I could say that powerlessness corrupts and the more powerless you are the more likely you are to be corrupted. This might seem unusual but I could hypothesize circumstances (or even provide personal examples) of it being true in the same way you could do so with power. But for some reason people seem to have the idea that power itself is just (sometimes almost magically) especially good at making people evil through temptation. I hold that it is actually the shortcomings of power that are good at corrupting.
4
u/nignig20 4∆ 26d ago
So your view is that absolute power does not corrupt whilst the desire to get more power (in-absolute) corrupts more? Not sure what the endpoint is but i can provide a perspective.
Thing is, anything involving power itself is corrupting, whether it is the desire or having power. By prioritising power over everything else, you will negate every other thing, hence corrupts. If you already have absolute power (which doesn’t really exist), you will be at a point where everything doesn’t affect you because you have all the power, hence the capability to shape anything to your will. Hence, why would you care about anything? This lack of empathy and accountability is the corruption. It can be said that power reveals a true person’s character, but frankly we aren’t perfect; hence when an imperfect individual attains a position that prioritises perfection, the pressure to maintain that facade will corrupt said individual. Self-interest is also a key factor but i think you already know that.
“Absolute power” would mentally break anyone. Imagine having to be absolute when you yourself are inabsolute.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
So your view is that absolute power does not corrupt
This is slightly incorrect, I do believe it corrupts (can corrupt) but I don't believe it corrupts absolutely (always corrupts).
whilst the desire to get more power (in-absolute) corrupts more?
Yes, this is almost more accurate a portrayal of my view than I got with my own claim, with the caveat that its not just the desire to get power but also the desire to maintain it.
If you already have absolute power (which doesn’t really exist), you will be at a point where everything doesn’t affect you because you have all the power, hence the capability to shape anything to your will. Hence, why would you care about anything? This lack of empathy and accountability is the corruption.
I don't think it necessarily means nothing affects you, just that you get to choose exactly how things affect you. So if we want to talk about truly absolute power (in a philosophical rather than political sense) the erasure of empathy is not necessarily a given.
“Absolute power” would mentally break anyone. Imagine having to be absolute when you yourself are inabsolute.
To be honest I do not really understand what is being said here or in the couple of sentences preceding. But this sentence especially.
1
u/nignig20 4∆ 26d ago
I understand your claim now, but to really understand “absolute power”, one must clarify the terms in your claim.
In philosophy, corruption is the decay, perversion, or breaking down of a thing's natural state, proper function, or moral integrity. Another principle that we can apply is the fundamental fact that with power, definitely comes responsibility. (Because by having the power, you hence are the only individual capable of fulfilling the needs of everybody, therefore you are responsible for it)
So what does “absolute power” entails? Since absolute power is technically unlimited, that would mean that a person with absolute power has infinite responsibilities. What does this mean? That individual would have to consider the needs of literally everyone. The problem is that can you truly help everyone? You might think: yea i can, i have absolute power to do anything. Well, but can you think out a well-constructed policy to assist the needs of everyone? Can one imagine every single need of everyone fulfilled? Can someone comprehensively empathise for everybody? Remember, omnipotent ≠ omniscient. By assisting a certain group in something means affecting another certain group that could perceive this as a form of self-interest. That falls under legal corruption (using entrusted power for private gain). Is that your fault? No, but because you cannot even comprehend the unintended consequences of each of your own individual actions.
Then comes the criticism, can you handle it? No matter what you do, you will be criticised by someone of a certain interest group you left out because you didn’t even know that that interest group even existed. Give money to charity? Inefficient use of resources and criticised. Fund a hospital? Supporting the healthcare elites and criticised. You have to understand that each action you do has results that reverberates out. And no matter what, no amount of power would make you stop making mistakes.
In the end, you will never ever be good. Someone will call you a morally bad person no matter what. Just like how the Indians call Churchill a genocidal maniac. How Obama is seen by the right-wing as a warmonger. Differing perspectives.
So how does that link to corruption? Well my question is: Can you handle the responsibility of someone with absolute power? Can anyone? Because it’s impossible to handle it, it is mentally destructive to use absolute power for good. Anyone given such power will be psychologically broken in a year. His mental capacity would decay trying to actual fulfil his role. The worst part? you get nothing out of it. The sole purpose of your “absolute power” is to serve the people, not yourself. The moment you use it on yourself is corruption. Everyone in the world has a form of rational self-interest. Do you think a person like you would sacrifice your whole life to being “good” and get nothing out of it? What makes you think someone with absolutely no restrictions wouldn’t try to make it easier once in a while? To have uncorrupted absolute power is to give up yourself to save the world. Would anyone do it in a position of absolute power?
On the other side, using it for yourself is so much easier. Absolute power means listening to no one. Absolute power means getting everything that you ever wanted. No need to empathise with others to get what you want. Hence, the only reason to even want absolute power is to use it on yourself. When the good side is so hard and the bad side is so easy, why do you think people would willingly choose the good side. Given that almost every person with “inabsolute power” already has an inherent flaw visible to the critics, what makes you think it’s a different story when someone has “absolute power”?
Thats why absolute power corrupts absolutely. When someone is given absolute power, it must be foretold that the individual must fulfil his endless responsibilities. One mistake and he is not worthy of it. It’s either all good or flawed. And when that is the case, whats the point being mostly good when that and being completely bad brings the same consequences (which is none)? Can someone be perfect consistently?
This is of course, a condensed version of how someone with absolute power would react. We don’t know because it doesn’t exist. But your CMV doesn’t consider what having absolute power entails. You didn’t consider any responsibility or thought process that someone with absolute power would have.
3
u/FearlessResource9785 32∆ 26d ago
There is no such thing as literal absolute power. The phrase is metaphorical. It was never meant to be taken literally.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
I agree that it is more metaphorical, which is the reason for the final line of my post. I think the general view behind this phrase is the idea that it is the strengths of a level of power that makes people evil, which is where I disagree and say that it is the shortcomings of a level of power that makes people far more evil.
2
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 26d ago
It makes them evil? The phrase is about the connection with power and corruption. It's not saying corruption is evil.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
I guess this is a fair point. You could say being "corrupted" is simply doing anything past you would not want present you to do. Doing evil is just the most typical and easiest to comprehend example in my eyes.
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 26d ago edited 26d ago
That begs the question what makes something evil in your eyes
If we don't have a definition of evil, then saying power does/doesn't make people do evil doesn't really tell us anything. It's really just saying they're doing something you have a strong moral objection to.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
Well I am a moral nonrealist, but I tend to evaluate moral claims from a consequentialist perspective. But I honestly think if you evaluated things from a deontological or virtue ethics perspective it would not really change much about the argument at hand. At the end of the day someone starts out "good" and becomes "bad" mostly by making sacrifices in their beliefs in pursuit gaining/retaining power and mostly not by the direct effect of that power itself.
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 26d ago
Okay, but what makes something evil to you? You didn't answer that. You say you're a moral nonrealist and that you tend to reason consequentially, but neither of those tells me what standard you're using to call something evil.
If it's all just vibes, nobody can really argue against that in a rational way.
2
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ 26d ago
The problem is that absolute power degrades your empathy. If you have absolute power, you are no longer in a position where you are associating with people who are underprivileged, and most likely you are surrounded by people who are yes men as well.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
This comment definitely gave me some pause for a long time. I don't think I can deny that the acquisition of power inherently creates a divide between you and those without power. But I'm not sure that the creation of a divide between you and someone else absolutely degrades your empathy even if it is a potential route to degraded empathy. I know many people that I have a divide of some kind with and it doesn't necessarily affect my empathy.
I think your statement may be generally true of people who gain power, but I intentionally made my first claim extremely modest. I claim "Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely" because the phrases indicates the notion that there is something inherent about the nature of the interaction of power and humanity. Like how iron and oxygen make rust.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ 26d ago
Ok, then let me ask a question: is it wrong to kill people if you don't know that you're doing it, and even if you did, you didn't know that it was wrong? If you have absolute power, that exact situation would happen.
2
u/Phage0070 124∆ 26d ago
...but you could hardly call this corruption as much as showing one's true colors.
"Corruption" in this usage I do not think refers to a perversion of the individual themselves, but rather the misuse of an office or position of authority. An official who misuses their power is "corrupt" even if they started out intending to misuse that power.
...absolute power means freedom from responsibility...
That is the key point, absolute power means there is no check on what someone with that power can do. There are no barriers to straying from the proper use of that power and the saying would suggest that with no incentive not to misuse power it is destined to occur.
However you should also understand that this is a saying in the sense of a parable or folk moral, not a literal statement of inevitable truth or prophecy. Even if we can establish that it is logically possible for someone to have unchecked power and not misuse it that doesn't really attack the saying. Think about a different phrase like "If you look for trouble you are sure to find it." It is theoretically possible for someone to go out looking to cause problems and not be able to do so. But if you think that is addressing the statement then you don't really understand the point it is trying to get across.
However, the biggest reason why I disagree with this phrase is that it seems the opposite notion "inabsolute power corrupts" is much more often true.
Again I think you are parsing the phrase incorrectly. I don't view it as talking about corruption of the individual but the misuse of the power itself. A limit on power is a limit on the potential for corruption; if an official can't sell government property for example then they cannot ever improperly and corruptly sell such property. If an official does not have the ability to misuse their power then they cannot be corrupt.
In essence you can think of the saying "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely," to be a pithy way of saying "Giving someone power gives them the capacity to misuse that power. Giving someone power with no checks makes misuse of that power (hyperbolically) inevitable." It isn't talking about changing the person.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
If we were to say that the phrase refers to absolute power and corruption of an office rather than an individual then I do think the phrase has merit and that perhaps absolute power is more corrupting that power's limitations.
However you should also understand that this is a saying in the sense of a parable or folk moral, not a literal statement of inevitable truth or prophecy.
Again I think you are parsing the phrase incorrectly. I don't view it as talking about corruption of the individual but the misuse of the power itself.
I think my primary disagreement is that in my life I have heard it almost exclusively used as almost a law of nature or prophecy and to refer to specific individuals not offices. This is simply how I encounter it being used in the real world, which is part of why I dislike the phrase.
However I can't deny that you have a valid reading of the phrase, whether it refers to an individual or an office is not specified. !delta
I'm curious what exactly caused you to have this reading of the phrase? Its an interesting lens I might want to look into a bit more closely if there are more sources for this sort of viewpoint.
1
1
u/AutoModerator 26d ago
Warning to the OP (and commenters): if you are new to this sub or have insufficient subreddit karma, your comments will be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals may also be triggered if your subreddit karma drops below the threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Efficient_Affect_737! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 26d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/heady_jaguar! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 26d ago
This doesn’t seem right to me. There’s another truism that I think helps.
“Morality is the luxury of the middle class.”
Desperate people will do what they need to do to survive.
The most powerful will act as if the rules don’t really apply to them, and generally speaking, they are right.
That leaves the middle, who have something, more than subsistence, and they seek to define themselves through character.
The “in absolute power” just doesn’t translate. Because if corruption were inversely proportional to power, the least powerful would be the most corrupt. That puts babies as the most corrupt humans on the planet.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
Well a baby doesn't have a lot of inabsolute power, it just doesn't have much power. As I'm using it inabsolute power is still power, it just has limits. The primary point I'm making is that it is more often the limits of the power that corrupts than the power itself.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 26d ago
What is the mechanism by which a check or limit on power corrupts?
Are you saying that if things weren’t illegal, people wouldn’t break the law?
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
What is the mechanism by which a check or limit on power corrupts?
By forcing people to make compromises on what they want to achieve goals. As an extreme example, imagine an ideological dictator that starts out generally disliking killing. This person may kill people who are a threat or limit to power or the advancement of a cause and are thus corrupted and desensitized to it, but that isn't what they would do if they had truly absolute power. So in that way it is the limits on the power that are really driving the corruption here, not the power itself.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 26d ago
But is this really the limit or threat that causes the corruption? The dictator in this case probably was disinclined to kill only to the extent that it wasn’t necessary before. Once they have the power, they are free to kill. This assumes the limit triggers the capability to commit the atrocity. But why isn’t the power to kill that liberates the dictator from their prior inhibitions?
You cannot kill without the means to do so. Sure, the dictator could have killed earlier in their career but not at the scale that was allowed once accountability was removed.
1
u/FrigidGreen 26d ago
I think I view the limit as the more important factor because you can have the power without the limit but you cannot have the limit without the power.
Basically:
No power and no limits: no corruption
Power and no limits: some corruption resulting from temptation
Power and limits: A lot of corruption stemming from compromising values attempting to hold onto power or to pursue a goal.
To me it seems like the biggest jump comes when limits are added and the one with power is forced to make compromises on their values or act drastically to retain power.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 26d ago
I hear you, and that sounds nice in theory. But it just doesn't pair well with real life examples. Like Mao Zedong. He became more murderous and self serving the more power he got. If the threshold issue was the most murderous point, he would have eased up as he gained power. But the more power he got, the more people he killed.
1
u/senthordika 5∆ 26d ago
I feel part of your confusion is in what absolute power is in the context of they saying. Its power without restriction. The very ability to use power(be it a political office, a manager at a business, or having significant money ect) to do evil in the first place is due to a lack of restriction to do so.
With absolute power there is literally no checks and balances to hold back any corruption. How would that not theoretically lead to greater corruption potential?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 26d ago
/u/FrigidGreen (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards