Which corrupts more, power or powerlessness?

[Hamouze]

I was thinking corruption goes hand in hand with an insatiable search for money and stuff. Corrupt politicians, rulers, just want more money and power.

You're just making an assumption. You're not supporting anything you're saying with any form of qualitative data or even logic. The logic you use can be flipped around. Once people acquire power they will settle and use it for the better good. You're assuming everyone is evil, in a sense.

 

[Stickly]

You're just making an assumption. You're not supporting anything you're saying with any form of qualitative data or even logic. The logic you use can be flipped around. Once people acquire power they will settle and use it for the better good. You're assuming everyone is evil, in a sense.

Everyone is evil, though. People acquire power through greed. When people acquire power, they use it for the better good of themselves.

 

[Hamouze]

Everyone is evil, though. People acquire power through greed. When people acquire power, they use it for the better good of themselves.

Really? Says who? Again, everything you're saying is completely baseless and all assumptions. If you're looking at it from a Hawthornean perspective then, yes everyone is malevolent but if you're looking at it from an Emersonian perspective then everyone is benevolent.

 

Power is the worst form of corruption.

 

[Hamouze]

Would like to hear some more opinions on the topic.

 

[IxI Duality IxI]

Power is more corrupt then being powerless in my opinion. Someone who has power already makes the moves (whether they be right or wrong). The powerless person wishes he could obtain this power, and most don't succeed. But there will be that one powerless person that is hungry for the power and makes corrupt moves to move up in level, but it may not be noticed because he is on a lower scale compared to a more powerful figure. Hope this made sense.

 

[Hamouze]

Power is more corrupt then being powerless in my opinion. Someone who has power already makes the moves (whether they be right or wrong). The powerless person wishes he could obtain this power, and most don't succeed. But there will be that one powerless person that is hungry for the power and makes corrupt moves to move up in level, but it may not be noticed because he is on a lower scale compared to a more powerful figure. Hope this made sense.

Again you're not making any rational arguments, you're making statements. You can't prove anything that you're saying. You're making broad assumptions. Also you're saying that power IS more corrupt? The question is which corrupts MORE. Didn't really answer the question, let alone in a logical manner.

 

[IxI Duality IxI]

Again you're not making any rational arguments, you're making statements. You can't prove anything that you're saying. You're making broad assumptions. Also you're saying that power IS more corrupt? The question is which corrupts MORE. Didn't really answer the question, let alone in a logical manner.

Please explain your thoughts on the matter? My thoughts are my own personal experiences, they are not made to offend anyone or engage an argument.

 

[Hamouze]

Please explain your thoughts on the matter? My thoughts are my own personal experiences, they are not made to offend anyone or engage an argument.

Read the OP...
And this is SFA, you're supposed start intellectually stimulating discussion AKA a smart argument.

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

Power corrupts more than powerlessnes.

Please see:

Read the OP...
And this is SFA, you're supposed start intellectually stimulating discussion AKA a smart argument.

You need to extrapolate your answers to include a detailed, thought-provoking and/or reasonable response.

 

[zorro_]

Again you're not making any rational arguments, you're making statements. You can't prove anything that you're saying. You're making broad assumptions. Also you're saying that power IS more corrupt? The question is which corrupts MORE. Didn't really answer the question, let alone in a logical manner.

He is making a rational argument. He's saying that the person in power is awarded with a greater ability to pursue his corruption. Implicit in this is the contention that this question is stupid and unanswerable -- which I, as well, think is true. Things corrupt a person in a way that corresponds to the person's specific character. No general statement could ever be made. Instead, we can only attempt an explanation at the practicality of pursuing our corruption in the circumstances of power or powerlessness.

Please see:


You need to extrapolate your answers to include a detailed, thought-provoking and/or reasonable response.

Please see:

[*]Do not respond to spam posts, simply report them using the triangle on the top right of said post

 

[Hamouze]

He is making a rational argument. He's saying that the person in power is awarded with a greater ability to pursue his corruption. Implicit in this is the contention that this question is stupid and unanswerable -- which I, as well, think is true. Things corrupt a person in a way that corresponds to the person's specific character. No general statement could ever be made. Instead, we can only attempt an explanation at the practicality of pursuing our corruption in the circumstances of power or powerlessness.

Stupid and unanswerable? Have you not read anything in SFA before? These are supposed to be thought provoking questions, most of which have no absolute answer. That's the point, you offer your view on the topic and try to support it.

And what you're saying about the case by case basis is absolutely not true. It's called the human condition, the unalterable part of humanity that is inherent and innate to human beings and not dependent on factors such as gender, race, culture, or class.

I'm not telling you to say "This question is stupid and unanswerable", I'm telling you to say "Power corrupts more because X Y Z" or "Powerlessness corrupts more because X Y Z". There are two options, no middle ground. If you didn't like the question, there was no point in you coming onto the thread with your pessimism and attempt at using big words to try and sound smart.

 

[zorro_]

Stupid and unanswerable? Have you not read anything in SFA before? These are supposed to be thought provoking questions, most of which have no absolute answer. That's the point, you offer your view on the topic and try to support it.

And what you're saying about the case by case basis is absolutely not true. It's called the human condition, the unalterable part of humanity that is inherent and innate to human beings and not dependent on factors such as gender, race, culture, or class.

I'm not telling you to say "This question is stupid and unanswerable", I'm telling you to say "Power corrupts more because X Y Z" or "Powerlessness corrupts more because X Y Z". There are two options, no middle ground. If you didn't like the question, there was no point in you coming onto the thread with your pessimism and attempt at using big words to try and sound smart.

Lol. There is a big difference between a difficult answer and no answer. Topics in SFA should have an absolute answer, but it should involve a difficult and fun debate to reach that answer. If there is no absolute answer it is extremely difficult to ever actually debate.
Okay. You've spoken grandly of the "human condition" and of this characteristic present in everyone and that which makes the question answerable. I for one could never conceive of such a thing. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: What X Y Z variables give us a solution to the question? What aspect of human nature makes it so that either power or powerlessness is most conducive to corruption? Also, please include in your answer an explanation of how you've acquired knowledge of the nature of literally every human being on earth. Or, if you continue in the line of thinking to claim that these variables operate independently of specific characteristics, please include an explanation of how you've managed to extend them to include everyone. I am very interested in your method!
Or,
P.S. I wasn't acting smart or using big words. Also, definitely not "pessimistic".

 

[Divine_God]

It depends on your definition of corruption. Is corruption whether or not the individual decides to engage in certain immoral actions that with/without power they would not have otherwise done?

In that respect having power doesn't necessarily push anyone towards being moral or immoral. I would argue that having power would have the opposite effect, giving the individual the choice to choose between many different courses of action. Whereas being powerless and haveing a reduced number of options would make immoral ones more enticing/optimal.

That being said an evil piece of shit who obtains power is going to do much more harm with the power than say a powerless evil piece of shit.

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

It depends on your definition of corruption. Is corruption whether or not the individual decides to engage in certain immoral actions that with/without power they would not have otherwise done?

In that respect having power doesn't necessarily push anyone towards being moral or immoral. I would argue that having power would have the opposite effect, giving the individual the choice to choose between many different courses of action. Whereas being powerless and haveing a reduced number of options would make immoral ones more enticing/optimal.

That being said an evil piece of shit who obtains power is going to do much more harm with the power than say a powerless evil piece of shit.

Firstly, let's take a look at Dictionary.com's multiple definitions of corruption that fit the context of the conversation:

2. moral perversion; depravity.
3. perversion of integrity.
4. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.

I see the point you're making in terms of powerlessness more or less forcing the hand of certain individuals by limiting the number of possible actions. However, if you look at it from the perspective of an individual with a wide variety of paths to choose from, you can see where people like government officials, politicians, dictators, etc. are easily enticed by multiple opportunities to engage in immoral behavior (excess materialism, bribery, manipulation of less powerful individuals, and so on).

If a person who is down on their luck, has no money, no connections and no optimism or motivation this, to me, only encourages a familiar pattern of pessimistic self-victimizing. Woe is me, etc. Conversely, a person with a multitude of connections and experiences, excess wealth and lavish lifestyle will only be more enticed into perverting their integrity by a desire to stay at the "top", so to speak.

In summary, not only do powerful people have more available options to engage in corrupted behavior, they also have more motivation to do so.

 

[IxI Duality IxI]

Still waiting to hear your thoughts on your own topic sir.

 

Great job spamming the forum with a quote.
http://www.sythe.org/something-all/...tion-read-before-posting-avoid-forum-ban.html

I'd appreciate it if you actually posted a rational argument or your thoughts, not something for some PC...

/facepalm. He obviously wrote that to show that he agreed with that quote

OT : To me power obviously. The examples i've seen for powerlessness rarely happen. But power can ALWAYS lead to corruption where as powerlessness can not.

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

Still waiting to hear your thoughts on your own topic sir.

This.

Also still waiting for a reply to my original argument which you pretty much completely ignored after I had to explain it to you.

Do you not see how this quote directly voices my opinion on the matter? God forbid we try to maintain a little brevity.

If I really must spell it out for you, I'll put it like this:

Power and authority corrupt not only more readily than powerlessness, but on a much grander scale. Powerlessness may cause oppression, which may in turn cause an individual to act out in a certain way, but I posit that it is much easier to be corrupted by something you have in abundance than by something you yearn for.

 

[Hamouze]

I'm going to edit this post and respond to everyone by tonight, I haven't the time with a relaxed mind to write some thought out responses and didn't wanna just spew nonsense

 

[zorro_]

This.

Also still waiting for a reply to my original argument which you pretty much completely ignored after I had to explain it to you.

You have correlated power with corruption without explaining the step. Basically, you are suggesting that power is the cause of corruption and that therefore those with more power are more likely to be corrupted than those with less power. The trouble is that you have merely assumed that power causes corruption.

Likewise, I can make the claim that "yearning" for power causes corruption. Suddenly, the powerless is more likely to experience corruption than the powerful. This holds the same level of weight as your claim. For this discussion, therefore, if you wish to argue a side you need to be able to prove why that side's state is more disposed towards corruption. Having an abundance of power is only informative if we assume that power is proven to be the strongest agent of corruption.