Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

I don't think so, no. Absolute power reveals your character apart from the inhibitions and threats of society. It reveals "the real you". I believe there are plenty of people who are moral and good because they have decided to be, and not because of the threats from others if they are not.

I don't think absolute power requires knowledge at all. But absolute power without knowledge won't be wielded very well. In life, I don't think absolute power or knowledge exist. We work with the power and knowledge we have, and what we do when we find our selves free from the limits of other people, is when we truly discover who we are.

If one had unlimited power couldn't they granted themselves unlimited knowledge so they understood what they are in power of? Otherwise it would have no meaning? And knowledge begets more questions and so forth?

There was similar thread on power started by @I Like Sushi.

Quoting TiredThinker

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

Remember the full quote from Lord Acton, which answers your question. It refers to men and politics, not deities. And the quote is tends to corrupt not always corrupts. Although it looks like absolute power seems doomed to malfeasance.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority."

Note "almost always'. This quote probably belongs in the category of common sense. It's hard to find an example of hierarchy where this does not often apply, from politics to corporate rapacity.

Since no one has been able to produce a deity for inspection it is impossible to say if any god's use of power applies. We are not even able to say if any gods exist and, if they do, we also don't know how they do what they do or why.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Why is God, then, omnipotent and still good? Aah! Omnibenevolence is necessary to check power on such a scale.

Doesn't God remind you of the 3 arms of government: judiciary (all-good), executive (all-powerful), and legislature (all-knowing)? A loose fit perhaps but there's an uncanny resemblance. Maybe God is just politics taken to a new level.

People who are theists are closet-monarchists. I always felt there was something to how popular monarchy-themed movies are in the west (Lord of the rings, star wars, Disney princesses, etc.) and let's not forget how girls get into a tizzy when the hear the word "prince" (UK) and how every one of 'em wants to be a princess.

We all love a philosopher king Socrates.

Quoting Tom Storm

Remember the full quote from Lord Acton, which answers your question. It refers to men and politics, not deities. And the quote is tends to corrupt not always corrupts. Although it looks like absolute power seems doomed to malfeasance.

I think the major problem is when absolute power is obtainable, when there aren't existing safety valves to prevent a person to have absolute power (like institutional separation of powers), then the competition for this power can become extremely ugly. And this corrupts power, because people will kill each other for that power. Because why not? Once you have absolute power, that you killed people to gain that position doesn't matter.

Just ask yourself, just how many absolute dictators or monarchs have been killed? And how many of these people with absolute power have killed people in order to sustain their position? Many.

Hence, having "absolute power" in a human society has meant that actually the power of the authority has been weak and vulnerable.

Quoting ssu

Just ask yourself, just how many absolute dictators or monarchs have been killed? And how many of these people with absolute power have killed people in order to sustain their position? Many.

I've often assumed that to gain absolute power in a political sense would probably (except for inherited power) require deceit, violence and possibly murder to achieve and to remain there. So the kinds of people that get to absolute power are likely to be compromised from the get go. I wonder who we would say has absolute power today - Putin? Xi? Kim?

I suspect there is a broader point that people who never have anyone say no to them might eventually become intoxicated by that power and the lack of boundaries and take awful liberties with other's liberties.

Quoting Tom Storm

I've often assumed that to gain absolute power in a political sense would likely require deceit, violence and possibly murder to achieve and to remain there.

Assuming that the whole society is built on absolute power both the power elite and the people are OK with the existing institutions. There are countries like Saudi-Arabia ...or North Korea. Or even Monaco, actually. Power transition can also happen peacefully.

In fact when you think it, hereditary transfer of power is one basic way to avoid the pitfall of a violent political struggle once the absolute ruler dies.

(The happy Korean family that North Korea is known for: Kim il-Sung with his son Kim Jong-il and his wife Kim Jong-Suk.)


Quoting Tom Storm

So the kinds of people that get to absolute power are likely to be compromised from the get go.

In a way, yes. The absolute power is usually rationalized with the country and society being under a threat, either external or domestic or both. When you don't have this fear of everything collapsing otherwise, why wouldn't the leader share power or delegate issues to others?

Just look at Russia or China. Both countries fear that the state will fall apart if "Western liberal democracy" is given a chance and that it is a conspiracy of the West, that wants this to happen.

Quoting Tom Storm

I suspect there is a broader point that people who never have anyone say no to them might eventually become intoxicated by that power and take awful liberties with other's liberties.

This is true, but perhaps we should think just why this kind of power is given to them in the first place.

Reply to ssu Agree. Note: I had made some small changes, adding: 'except for inherited power.'

Quoting Tom Storm

I've often assumed that to gain absolute power in a political sense would probably (except for inherited power) require deceit, violence and possibly murder to achieve and to remain there. So the kinds of people that get to absolute power are likely to be compromised from the get go.

:chin: Very perceptive. Nobody gets to where they are by being nice. The higher they rise, the bloodier their history. It's a rat race, dog eat dog.

Quoting TiredThinker

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

It seems it tends to ... :point: Reply to Tom Storm

Does absolute power almost require absolute knowledge?

I'd say, in this context, "power" and "knowledge" are synonymous: the capability of effortlessly "changing anything" includes effortlessly "changing oneself via learning" (i.e. without conditions, constraints, limits).

And with absolute power and knowledge would one be cruel or self serving if all actions require the same amount of effort and eventually equally add up to boredom?

I don't see how, again in this context, "cruel" and "self serving" and "boredom" are applicable an "Absolute" (sovereign).

In that case wouldn't any such God be all [s]empathy[/s]?

Non sequitur. :mask:

Rather: the world itself may be proof (exhibit 1) that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" insofar as 'g/G has (is) absolute power' (re: all-creator) and 'the world g/G has created is absolutely corrupt' (re: cosmic entropy).

"Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei" goes the Chinese proverb, translated in 1875 as "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."

Once you have achieved absolute power, how in hell are you going to step down? You've made so many enemies getting up, that there is no way down. And continued enemy efforts from below will bring you to corruption in keeping them there.

The Japanese may have had a way out, which was suicide. Rather than act corruptly, and rather than try to retire, you find some honor excuse to off yourself.

If you could only restrain your corruption to invocation upon enemies:

"Hey, my loving children, I promise to be good to you. When you see me, admittedly, act corruptly, please know that I am only acting corruptly with respect to evil doers. I am the philosopher king, only doing evil to evil and always doing good to good."

Yeah, that's the ticket! :rofl:

Reply to TheMadFool @Tom Storm Nonsense. In any enterprise corruption equates to its degradation.

Gangsters are gangsters. Politicians are politicians. Feel free to make a joke about that, but in all seriousness there is a danger in equating them as identical in every respect. You can have noble and principled gangsters just as you can have noble and principled politicians - the ‘bad’ lives in every nook and cranny of humanity.

Reply to 180 Proof Why does it have to be ‘power’ that corrupts and nothing else? Why does everyone jump on this little saying as if it is empirically true?

Has anyone attempted to suggest that a deficiency in power corrupts too? Could it just be that power makes corruption more visible as those corrupt individuals with little to no power are not exactly prominent.

Maybe it is just viewing the world and humans as simplistic that causes corruption (like holding to the opinion that one item is responsible for one outcome).

If there was no corruption in politics they’d be no need for politics.

Quoting James Riley

"Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei" goes the Chinese proverb, translated in 1875 as "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."

:fire:

Quoting I like sushi

Nonsense. In any enterprise corruption equates to its degradation.

Gangsters are gangsters. Politicians are politicians. Feel free to make a joke about that, but in all seriousness there is a danger in equating them as identical in every respect. You can have noble and principled gangsters just as you can have noble and principled politicians - the ‘bad’ lives in every nook and cranny of humanity.

José Mujica. Do you know any other people you who are like him?

Quoting I like sushi

Nonsense. In any enterprise corruption equates to its degradation.

Gangsters are gangsters. Politicians are politicians. Feel free to make a joke about that, but in all seriousness there is a danger in equating them as identical in every respect. You can have noble and principled gangsters just as you can have noble and principled politicians - the ‘bad’ lives in every nook and cranny of humanity.

Sorry Sush, I'm not sure which bit is nonsense. I'm not sure I follow your point. I wasn't really talking about genuine politicians - Is Putin a politician or a gangster. Or both? Kim? I do take your point that most politicians are not in scope for this. And Acton also agrees.

Reply to Tom Storm This as a comment to what you said:

Quoting TheMadFool

Nobody gets to where they are by being nice. The higher they rise, the bloodier their history. It's a rat race, dog eat dog.

Was just pointing to you because MadFool seemed to interpret what you said as meaning/conveying something you wouldn’t side with wholeheartedly - which you confirmed.

Mad does seem to be talking mainly about dictators though.

Reply to I like sushi I cited an example :point: José Mujica, a counterexample to my claim that politics is dirty. However, I wasn't committing a sweeping generalization fallacy, such claims are inherently statistical. You know that.

Quoting Tom Storm

Is Putin a politician or a gangster. Or both? Kim? I

:chin:

It has come to this. Some countries are in such bad shape that they need to be led by gangsters. Who knows whether that's not true of "genuine" democracies as well? Trump sure did prove a point: just as Gödel discovered back in the 1900s, the American constitution has loopholes that allow a dictator to come to power. What those loopholes are only Gödel and the friends to whom he had confided this info to, Einstein among them, knows. They're all, unfortunately, dead and gone! Beware Americans. Trump was just a proof of concept.

Quoting TiredThinker

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

Would it be possible to obtain the position of absolute power without being absolutely corrupt?

One cannot gain any position of power unless one is at least to some extent corrupt by the principles of official morality.

Quoting baker

One cannot gain any position of power unless one is at least to some extent corrupt by the principles of official morality.

Because?

Also, what are the ‘principles of official morality’?

"Official morality" tells us to be honest, friendly, not to kill, rape, and pillage, to care about other people and other beings, and such. Yet people who behave that way never make it far in life.

Reply to baker

How so? What if one is a brave warrior and they are hand picked by the tribe to be the leader. A position they didn't seek or want, but will use to serve the people?

Reply to TiredThinker A brave warrior -- meaning, someone who has killed many people.

Thou shalt not kill -- except when you should.

Reply to baker

Very well, a priest that is well respected and wise.

Quoting TheMadFool

ust as Gödel discovered back in the 1900s, the American constitution has loopholes that allow a dictator to come to power. What those loopholes are only Gödel and the friends to whom he had confided this info to, Einstein among them, knows. They're all, unfortunately, dead and gone! Beware Americans.

I read somewhere, that when Gödel was applying for US citizenship, he started to take up the matter of the loopholes up with the citizenship examiner. Luckily Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern did calm Gödel down (as perhaps it wasn't the best place to start debating the subject) and he got his citizenship.

Roshambo (Rock-Paper-Scissors) [The Chinese were onto something. Too bad the present leaders of China have forgotten the wisdom of their ancestors]

Intransitive Dice

Given 3 centers of power, L, J, E [legislature, judiciary, executive ???]

1. L > J [True]
2. J > E [True]
3. L > E [Transitivity, False]. Instead E > L

L nor J nor E weilds absolute power.

I might have got it wrong. Correct me please.

Sancta trinitas unus Deus. :grin:

Reply to TiredThinker The tribe doesn't pick a priest

Some tribes pick their priests. And sometimes only after the priest has proven him/herself to the satisfaction of the tribe.