DescentBB

it could be either way, both even.

what do you think

I'd say either way is possible. Sometimes corruption comes first, sometimes power.

lol, corruption. it starts in the heart of man. If it wasn't there to begin with, power would not bring it to fruition.

Power reveals corruption.

Your moral nature is defined by the choices you make, and is undeveloped and unrevealed in any context in which you're restrained, even when restrained only by social convention. You find out what sort of person you are by what you do in a realm in which you have absolute power and your actions have no ill consequences for you.

The nearest approximation for such a setting is the realm of personal fantasy. I believe that what you fantasize about reveals most clearly who you are, and is a good way to get a picture of what you would do, eventually, in a position of absolute power. The picture's rarely flattering.

However, your choices also shape your character. You can choose to either resist or yield to temptation, and next time it'll be easier to choose the same way. Doing the right thing is not only right, it also makes you a better person--and the same goes for evil. Therefore, since when you gain power you gain the ability to do new things, it's possible to do evil things you couldn't before, and so become more even corrupt than you were when you started.

Character aspects are also contagious. It's possible to begin with a minor character flaw--a bit of laziness, a minor callousness to fellow man--and have it spill over and taint other parts of your character through your actions. A despot who begins willing to sacrifice his goals to preserve life may end up failing to do so once or twice through minor laziness. After killing a few people, he finds he doesn't care about it as much anymore, and a new flaw develops. So power can corrupt that way too.

So it's complex. But ultimately, I think power reveals who you are, and reveals existing corruption. However, your actions make you who you are, so power accelerates the process of you becoming more good or evil.

Of course, the rub here is that we're evil. Even the best of us have character flaws that, allowed to run amok under absolute power, would turn us into vile beings. We all, left completely to our own devices, are utterly corrupt. It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I ment to counterpose the cliche statement "power corrupts" with a new one "corrupt people seek power" which is mentioned relatively less, but ok!
edit: lol, CUDA just said it. Come on man, geeze.

Drakona wrote:It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

If by "social pressure" you mean the inbuilt social basis for empathy and altruism biologically hardwired into our brains, effected by genetics & natural mutations, but mutable by abnormal psychology - then yeah.
But i don't think that's what you mean - i think you mean to suggest empathy and altruism are mostly unnatural.
I'd then attempt to reach a middle ground by suggesting that the lack of empathy and altruism is itself abnormal psych, brought about by harsh situations and misguided cultural evolution, and perhaps once understood in this fashion will yeild a vital sociological key to curing general malaise in the population.
And then you'd say that even the proto-humans lived a harsh life chased by lions in the Savanah for millenia and if anything such harsh realitys are normal for us and thus any labeling of psych that develops from such events as "abnormal psych" would reveal the term to be nothing but purely contemporary based mainly on nieve hedonistic fantasies of utopia!

And i'd be forced to agree, and then i'd unnervingly fantasise about flinging poo at you for a few seconds before banishing the thought with full deniability (you did not read this) with thoughts of a much higher plain.... MONSTER TRUCKS YEAH.


You know... sometimes Humanism and Anthropology just don't get along
(waiter! more LSD please)

Drakona wrote:Power reveals corruption.
...
You find out what sort of person you are by what you do in a realm in which you have absolute power and your actions have no ill consequences for you.

I'd agree with that. Power isn't the original source of corruption, but it certainly brings out and exacerbates it.

Which to me begs another interesting question:

Q. If power reveals and accelerates inner corruption, does lack of power serve to do the opposite (i.e. prevent the increase of corruption)? If so, does this make lack of power an ethically good thing?

Foil wrote: If so, does this make lack of power an ethically good thing?

And if yes, does organized religion then become obsolete? Which is just one of many examples of an institutionalized "character flaw".

Foil wrote:Q. If power reveals and accelerates inner corruption, does lack of power serve to do the opposite (i.e. prevent the increase of corruption)? If so, does this make lack of power an ethically good thing?

I would think the opposite, lack of power also implies a lack of responsibility and it would be even easier to become corrupted.

Drakona wrote:Power reveals corruption.
Of course, the rub here is that we're evil. Even the best of us have character flaws that, allowed to run amok under absolute power, would turn us into vile beings. We all, left completely to our own devices, are utterly corrupt. It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

I was pretty much with you up until the end but to begin with, I don't think what we do defines who or what we really are. If I do something I think or someone else thinks is bad, that doesn't make me bad .... it just makes me a person who could have made a better choice.

As for being evil ... it's true that we all have flaws, character and otherwise, but I believe there is part of most of us that is inherently good. But there are people who either lack this "essence" or are unaware of it.

So ... in my opinion, power, which can be a good thing, came first and the abuse of certain kinds of power brought corruption.

I too am resistant to this idea that humans are inherently evil. But I also doubt that they are inherently good. I think that humans do good and evil things, some in different proportions, and that's about as far as you can take it.

Drakona wrote:We all, left completely to our own devices, are utterly corrupt. It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

Is that so, Glaucon? I don't doubt that this is true of many people, that they are only good because of social pressures. But I think that there is also a class of people who recognize that there is a type of life, namely, the well-lived life, that can only be lived by being virtuous.

I tend to agree that corruption comes first. Good and evil are taught to us by our parents, babysitters, tv etc from birth. How we deal with life and the choices we make determine if Power will corrupt us or not.

Powerful people aren't always corrupt, and corrupt people aren't always powerful. Although they're linked, to say that either one will definitely form the other is horribly wrong.

Krom wrote:

Foil wrote:Q. If power reveals and accelerates inner corruption, does lack of power serve to do the opposite (i.e. prevent the increase of corruption)? If so, does this make lack of power an ethically good thing?

I would think the opposite, lack of power also implies a lack of responsibility and it would be even easier to become corrupted.

So a person with little power/responsibility would be more prone to corruption than a person in a position of high power/responsibility?

How so?

When a person has no power nor responsibility it doesn't matter if they rot and become corrupted or not, thus there is no drive or reason for them to remain uncorrupted. They will erode just as fast as someone in a position of great power if not faster because there will be no repercussions.

Normal would be striking a balance between the two extremes of abuse and neglect.

This is kinda like the chicken and the egg,:) but I think the answer depends on your definition or concept of what power is. I believe that love is the only real power we have and we have it before we're even born. So in my mind, corruption is something we had to learn.

And yes ... we are taught, not only as children, but adults as well - what we should and shouldn't believe, what's true and what isn't, how we should act and so on. Half of the problem with this is that too many of the people teaching us don't always know the best way to do that, and all they know is what they were taught. The other half is that we also learn on our own, even as babies, before we're able to question or completely understand what we're learning or what we're being taught. However, as adults, we can make our own choices.

Krom wrote:

Foil wrote:Q. If power reveals and accelerates inner corruption, does lack of power serve to do the opposite (i.e. prevent the increase of corruption)? If so, does this make lack of power an ethically good thing?

I would think the opposite, lack of power also implies a lack of responsibility and it would be even easier to become corrupted.

but then - some people ethically strive after power for the sake of being a placeholder, to keep corrupt people from getting it.
They may want a lack of power, so they actually strive after power for the sake of disabling or destroying that power.

Hmm... Krom's suggestion that "a lack of power could be corrupt" has really got me thinking...
Perhaps those who strive to avoid power are aware and accepting of their own corruption, and feel that the best way to live an ethically corrupt life (ie: without hurting others) is to avoid power, avoid responsability - because it will always be abused so it's a flawed concept to begin with.
But then, if corruption can actaully be "ethical", can exist without hurting others, it would beg the question of "what is corruption" in the first place. Dammit, i hoped to avoid semantics.

I think i get what you're saying Drac, that "everyone's corrupt - we just don't see it until power brings it out". We should probabaly refine the definition of Corruption so that this is apparent, as the common definition of corruption doesn't bring this out, we need a word for this.


I'm tempted to ask the question of which is worse: slight corruption in a very powerful official or great corruption in a lower official. From a measured comparison of total damage either can do.
But really to me it's intent of malice and a lack of empathy/altruism that hurts the most. So as illogical as it may seem, i'd say the lower official is the worse, because the higher official's position shouldn't even be allowed to exist in the first place (where a mere slight of hand can kill thousands - how can one man be expected to have such conscientiousness and self-control, it's an inhuman expectation). A strange pov perhaps.

Neither, political parties are the source for both!

Once a man thinks he has obtained a little power, it is generally the nature of nearly all men to start taking advantage of it, or you could say \"un-righteous dominion\" (use it unfairly, to control others in ways they shouldn't, etc.) ... therefore I would say ...

Power first, then corruption.

just my opinion. (OK, so I skimmed my way through. Sue me. Just figured to get my opinion stated.)

Tech, those who would take advantage of power unfairly are already corrupt, so you have it backwards.

As for what Krom is saying, go to Detroit and check out the ghettos. No power. All corrupted.

It's just human nature.

Power may make people corrupt.
But perhaps also corrupt people simply seek after power?

Perhaps to seek after power is itself a corrupt action

heh.. you'er thinking too hard.

Not too hard, just harder than you.
GTFO of the thread if that's gonna be your attitude

</anti-intellectualism pet peave>

Drakona wrote:Of course, the rub here is that we're evil. Even the best of us have character flaws that, allowed to run amok under absolute power, would turn us into vile beings. We all, left completely to our own devices, are utterly corrupt. It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

I don't believe at all that we are evil. Recent research shows that we are hardwired for empathy. Any event befalling somebody else is processed as if it would happen to us ourselves. Seeing somebody smile activates our smiling muscles, seeing somebody frown activates our frowning muscles. This 'mirroring behavior' can even be shown at the level of different brain regions. if you see an injury befall somebody else, this activates more or less exactly the same brain regions that become activated if this thing would happen to you --- and this involves both region coding the physical aspects of the injury (how it feels) and those coding the emotional aspects (how distressing it is).

The striking thing is that we cannot help it --- these responses even occur after you have seen the exactly the same event for dozens of times in the brain scanner. The only thing we can do is not look at these events. And this is, i think, exactly where the problem lies with modern positions of power. In contrast to earlier societies where even the bosses were still part of the same community, modern positions of power remove the persons so far from the populations they affect that our empathic networks have no chance to kick in. So, in other words, powerful people are not evil, they just live in a world that shields them from the consequences of their own actions on other people.

Pandora wrote:

Drakona wrote:Of course, the rub here is that we're evil. Even the best of us have character flaws that, allowed to run amok under absolute power, would turn us into vile beings. We all, left completely to our own devices, are utterly corrupt. It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

I don't believe at all that we are evil. Recent research shows that we are hardwired for empathy. Any event befalling somebody else is processed as if it would happen to us ourselves. Seeing somebody smile activates our smiling muscles, seeing somebody frown activates our frowning muscles. This 'mirroring behavior' can even be shown at the level of different brain regions. if you see an injury befall somebody else, this activates more or less exactly the same brain regions that become activated if this thing would happen to you --- and this involves both region coding the physical aspects of the injury (how it feels) and those coding the emotional aspects (how distressing it is).

The striking thing is that we cannot help it --- these responses even occur after you have seen the exactly the same event for dozens of times in the brain scanner. The only thing we can do is not look at these events. And this is, i think, exactly where the problem lies with modern positions of power. In contrast to earlier societies where even the bosses were still part of the same community, modern positions of power remove the persons so far from the populations they affect that our empathic networks have no chance to kick in. So, in other words, powerful people are not evil, they just live in a world that shields them from the consequences of their own actions on other people.

There is Always choice. Even if you don't like the results of a choice you choose not to make; there is always choice. Hardwired or not.

That there is 'always choice' is one of the deepest rooted beliefs in western societies. Sadly, it doesn't seem to have any scientific basis. If anything, research indicates that Choice is a limited resource. Google 'ego depletion', for instance, where it is found that controlling yourself uses up willpower that is not available anymore for later acts of Choice. If true, then it poses another problem for positions of power. If positions of power require much self-control anyways in daily interactions, the chances for somebody making a controlled choice to NOT take easy gains through corrupt behavior is significantly reduced.

Note that I am not trying to excuse corrupt behavior. But it is also necessary to take basic psychology into account, and as it stands, modern positions of power seem to be structured ideally to promote corruption. My point is that we now know enough about the underlying psychological mechanism that we can leave the 'there is always choice' mantra behind and begin to structure key positions in a way that encourages pro-social behavior, and not the opposite.

If man were inherently evil, then I suspect the world would be a much different place than it is now.

no offense Pandora. there is ALWAYS choice.
what are you saying? that we only get so many choices a day? well guys I used up my allotted 3 choices today, guess I'll just have to screw you over now because I don't have a choice.
Using your will power if like lifting weights or practicing at something. the more you do it the stronger and better you become at it.

Ego depletion refers to the idea that self-control and other mental processes that require focused conscious effort rely on energy that can be used up. When that energy is low (rather than high), mental activity that requires self-control is impaired. In other words, using one's self-control impairs the ability to control one's self later on. In this sense, the idea of (limited) willpower is correct. In an illustrative experiment on ego depletion, participants who controlled themselves by trying not to laugh while watching a comedian did worse on a later task that required self-control compared to participants who did not have to control their laughter while watching the video.

Ego depletion is just another one of societies excuses for not being responsible for ones actions.


you weak minded fool, he's using the old Jedi mind trick

CUDA wrote:no offense Pandora. there is ALWAYS choice.
what are you saying? that we only get so many choices a day? well guys I used up my allotted 3 choices today, guess I'll just have to screw you over now because I don't have a choice.
Using your will power if like lifting weights or practicing at something. the more you do it the stronger and better you become at it.

Ego depletion refers to the idea that self-control and other mental processes that require focused conscious effort rely on energy that can be used up. When that energy is low (rather than high), mental activity that requires self-control is impaired. In other words, using one's self-control impairs the ability to control one's self later on. In this sense, the idea of (limited) willpower is correct. In an illustrative experiment on ego depletion, participants who controlled themselves by trying not to laugh while watching a comedian did worse on a later task that required self-control compared to participants who did not have to control their laughter while watching the video.

Ego depletion is just another one of societies excuses for not being responsible for ones actions.

Pandora cited a study, you disagreed with nothing to back yourself up. I'm not sure what there is to take offense at. It's like taking offense at someone standing in the street punching themself in the face - none of my business , everyone kindof walks around them trying to ignore them.

hehe.. and studies are only as good as the people observing them. I've seen SOooo many studies over my life time to see Sooo many of them over turned 10 years later. psychiatry/psychology are hardly firm sciences. People are too fluid to pin down that well. Granted, the study may have found a pattern, but I wouldn't considering it infallible.

Cuda is totally within his right to disagree and say so with or without \"proof\". We've both been on this board long enough to know that any amount of proof or arguing is going to change no one's mind here. That is why I barely post or write more than the core of my thoughts.

take or leave it. My guess is leave it.

Once again, this is another thread boiling down to personal responsibility. .. something this country is sorely lacking any more. (on the whole)

This all gets back to control, or the perception of it, in our lives. We can only control what we personally do. We can't control the actions of others, the weather or anything else for that matter. We can AFFECT those, but not directly control them to our satisfaction always. We perceive that we have control of our lives, but we really are at the whim of fate, poor decisions, greed, corruption and the lust for power most of the time.

This gets back to the fear we have of death that was started in another thread. People trust doctors and pharmacists all the time and don't think that they would be so callus and greedy as to cause death, but it does happen. I just saw a story this morning in the news about a pharmacist that skimmed 18 million dollars from cancer patients by diluting their chemo drugs to a fraction of the prescribed strengths. By doing this, he saved the extra money for himself and probably caused the deaths of many people that may have benefited from the proper treatments. (Sorry, I can't find the link to this story)

Now, will people suddenly stop going to their doctors and pharmacists. No. They will rationalize it as an isolated incident that won't ever affect them and go on blithely with their little lives. We all just accept corruption and power as part of the human stain and try to ignore it as long as possible until it impacts our lives personally. THEN we seem to get religion and rant about solving the problem. Yea, right! For as long as it's in the news.

I personally think that GREED and the desire for CONTROL is what drives the craving for power and corruption.

I agree. Greed and control domination are the roots of corruption. But, like I said, human nature. Not even human nature, animal nature. It's a base factor in everything alive.

CUDA wrote:Ego depletion is just another one of societies excuses for not being responsible for ones actions.

Duper wrote:once again, this is another thread boiling down to personal responsibility

I am not offended at all, but a bit puzzled that you two are so opposed to the idea of ego depletion, especially when coming from a personal responsibility point of view. If there is a factor that affects the ease with which I can choose the hard right thing over the bad easy thing then I want to know about, in order to be maximally personally responsible. The same way that I try not to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol when making important decisions.

The way I see it, the mantra that 'there is always choice' is a weak excuse not to start changing critical aspects of the society, so that they correspond more closely to the real human nature, rather than to some christian/republican/whatever ideal of what humans should be like. One of these aspects is that humans can *not* always freely choose the right path, and if you take an honest look at the world today it should be pretty obvious that this is the case. So, if psychology has identified factors that affects Choice, we have to take them into account when we design position of power, especially if bad choices can affect the life or well-being of hundreds of people. That is responsibility to me ... rather than saying, after-the-fact, that, well, yes, if we would have been lucky, he could have made the right choice, even though all aspects of his position pushed him in the other direction.

CUDA wrote:Using your will power if like lifting weights or practicing at something. the more you do it the stronger and better you become at it.

But you ignore the other side of your analogy: a muscle can become tired after training and needs some rest before it will be effective again. And that's exactly what the main proponents of the ego depletion literature are claiming. See here: "Self-Regulation and Depletion of Limited Resources: Does Self-Control Resemble a Muscle?" (.pdf)

@Duper: If you look at the wiki-page for ego depletion then you will find that it's not a single but multiple studies. They even seem to have identified the chemicals needed for these control-processes to be maximally effective. While I agree that a single study can easily turned over, once an effect has been corrobated by multiple studies in multiple labs across the world then it is usually a pretty safe bet that there is something to it.

It seems to be a belief that if a man is good/strong/? enough he is invincible. Which is so wrong.

This is why i made that other thread asking where the soul is \"stored\" in the body. Coz no matter how strong you think you are - you're still made of the same mushy organic stuff as everyone else - there is no internal \"soul\" that survives a brain injury. No matter what fortitudous ethereal quality you think you have that will protect you - it's all based in your body (of which the brain is part of), and it's thus all at the whim of bio-chemistry.

It's the same people who don't understand this, that treat mental illness as a personal spiritual FAILING.
These people are quite simply naive. You might as well think that muscles will run without energy, or perpetual motion machines exist.

It seems to me to work both ways. Corrupt people seek power, but if a good person got enough power, s/he would possibly become corrupt. You see both all the time in the news about the political leaders of various countries.

(One example that I find particularly funny is the (former?) governor of (Cuba, I think), passed a law that no one except him could run for office. The country was officially a democracy, unofficially a dictatorship.)

Don't know about that, Alter, if you are congenial enough, you don't care about the power you wield, you will only use it for good things.

All my 'power' dreams end up trying to make other people's lives better. All my 'I won the lottery' dreams, I buy myself a new bowling ball, and buy random strangers a house. (It's a hell of a bowling ball though!)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough. I didn't mean everyone. I just meant the people who are more volatile and susceptible to corruption. I know it's impossible to make a complete generalization.

I think that the possibility of corruption may be why so many charity organizations are non-profit.

Edit: I edited my other post to make it less generalizing.

Power more often leads to corruption than corruption to power as corrupt people are normally caught before coming into power.

Don't know what passes for necroposting around here, but if this is it, I apologize. I don't come by these boards much, but I'm trying to make an effort to answer people who direct questions to me. I feel like it's kind of lame to run away and leave people hanging, even if that's not my intent . . .

Foil wrote:Q. If power reveals and accelerates inner corruption, does lack of power serve to do the opposite (i.e. prevent the increase of corruption)? If so, does this make lack of power an ethically good thing?

I would say power is morally neutral. The fact that power corrupts us is only a side effect of the fact that we were already corrupt. Masking and restraining evil might be good for mankind (so it's practically a good idea to distribute/limit power), but it doesn't make it less evil.

Flabby Chick wrote:And if yes, does organized religion then become obsolete?

I have no idea what made you make this connection. I see a non sequiter here.

mistercool2 wrote: I don't think what we do defines who or what we really are. If I do something I think or someone else thinks is bad, that doesn't make me bad .... it just makes me a person who could have made a better choice.

Immediately, that's true. Ultimately, over many repeated actions, what you do absolutely changes who you are. Virtue and desensitization turn on habit.

Jeff250 wrote:

Drakona wrote: We all, left completely to our own devices, are utterly corrupt. It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

Is that so, Glaucon? I don't doubt that this is true of many people, that they are only good because of social pressures. But I think that there is also a class of people who recognize that there is a type of life, namely, the well-lived life, that can only be lived by being virtuous.

We can agree to disagree. Whether mankind is fundamentally good or evil is a major philosophical divide. History has a few good kings and popes--perhaps enough to support your view--but not many.

I'll still disagree. I say corruption is a human universal, and even the kindest and most philosophically virtuous person you could find would eventually become a monster given enough time and power for their innate corruptions to come to the surface.

Pandora wrote:

Drakona wrote: Of course, the rub here is that we're evil. Even the best of us have character flaws that, allowed to run amok under absolute power, would turn us into vile beings. We all, left completely to our own devices, are utterly corrupt. It is only social pressure and the fear of bigger fish that lets us cling to any fantasies that we are good.

I don't believe at all that we are evil. Recent research shows that we are hardwired for empathy. Any event befalling somebody else is processed as if it would happen to us ourselves. Seeing somebody smile activates our smiling muscles, seeing somebody frown activates our frowning muscles. This 'mirroring behavior' can even be shown at the level of different brain regions. if you see an injury befall somebody else, this activates more or less exactly the same brain regions that become activated if this thing would happen to you --- and this involves both region coding the physical aspects of the injury (how it feels) and those coding the emotional aspects (how distressing it is).

The striking thing is that we cannot help it --- these responses even occur after you have seen the exactly the same event for dozens of times in the brain scanner. The only thing we can do is not look at these events. And this is, i think, exactly where the problem lies with modern positions of power. In contrast to earlier societies where even the bosses were still part of the same community, modern positions of power remove the persons so far from the populations they affect that our empathic networks have no chance to kick in. So, in other words, powerful people are not evil, they just live in a world that shields them from the consequences of their own actions on other people.

Oh yes. We're naturally good, too. People innately love and want to care for other people. I certainly don't deny that. But people also are inherently corrupt, and the battle between good and evil rages in every person. It's not as simple as a natural impulse that wants to hurt or help others. We have impulses to do both. Depending on how you live, you can override one or the other, or other virtues or flaws can bring one out more clearly.

I definitely think you're wrong that powerful people being evil is just a result of their being removed from their actions. That can happen sometimes, but it certainly isn't the whole story. History is full of brutal tyrants who willfully, physically, personally hurt their subjects and clearly enjoyed it..

I certainly am not saying we all start that way. But I'm saying we start with the capacity and inclination to become that.