Which corrupts more, power or powerlessness?

[zorro_]

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

I can't help but observe that you've never edited this post. Do you have a response to our responses to your idea?

 

[Stickly]

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.

I've stated my "argument", you need to provide yours, not only try and counter argument with the same shit over and over. Please learn to SFA.

Next up, this post makes absolutely no sense. You aren't arguing anything, just saying there is two different perspectives in which you can take this, at least that's what I'm going to assume you're saying. If that's the case, yes, hence why you made this thread and you wished to see what others thought. You have yet to throw out any actual intellectual argument, so I shall wait for that.

 

[rebirth2316]

What can be said is that power gives more opportunity for a person to pursue his corruption, while powerlessness will normally produce unrealisable corruption - unless it makes the transformation to power.

This is a valid point.

The opinion I'd like to add to this is that corruption within those of power can be exhausted, and therefore they release the powerful emotions eating at them.

But while we have someone who is powerless, as zorro stated, they can not bring their corruption into existence. It will lie within them and build and build, eating at their soul until they finally can hold it no longer and dramatically release it.

 

[Hamouze]

I can't help but observe that you've never edited this post. Do you have a response to our responses to your idea?

Reading through the thread, I'll be completely honest, I don't have an answer myself. But that's besides the point, that's the whole reason I asked the question: to ask for other people's opinions. Lots of threads ask questions, incite discussion, and have arguments between different viewers, not just necessarily the OP.

Much like you, I can't come to a conclusive decision as to which corrupts more but at the same time I also disagree with your idea that the question is impossible to answer for two reasons:

1) When comparing two things there must always be one that is greater. Your options are X > Y X < Y or it's even possible to argue X = Y. In this case you're argument is irrational.

2) A less legitimate reason but still, I got this question from a top ranked honors college essay prompt

 

[zorro_]

Reading through the thread, I'll be completely honest, I don't have an answer myself. But that's besides the point, that's the whole reason I asked the question: to ask for other people's opinions. Lots of threads ask questions, incite discussion, and have arguments between different viewers, not just necessarily the OP.

Much like you, I can't come to a conclusive decision as to which corrupts more but at the same time I also disagree with your idea that the question is impossible to answer for two reasons:

1) When comparing two things there must always be one that is greater. Your options are X > Y X < Y or it's even possible to argue X = Y. In this case you're argument is irrational.

2) A less legitimate reason but still, I got this question from a top ranked honors college essay prompt

I disagree with your first reason.

Here's an example:

1.X
2.Y
3. Therefore, X+Y.

This is a logical sequence and neither has been proven to be greater.

Showing the logical argument illustrates that in the language of logic your reason fails. But it is also patently false in a more general sense. Things can exist and be of different categories. My argument is that our X and Y in this case can never be compared, for they symbolize ideas that cannot be brought together in the way you have attempted. This is not a contradiction.

 

[rebirth2316]

I disagree with your first reason.

Here's an example:

1.X
2.Y
3. Therefore, X+Y.

This is a logical sequence and neither has been proven to be greater.

Showing the logical argument illustrates that in the language of logic your reason fails. But it is also patently false in a more general sense. Things can exist and be of different categories. My argument is that our X and Y in this case can never be compared, for they symbolize ideas that cannot be brought together in the way you have attempted. This is not a contradiction.

Zorro, you failed to notice that he was criticizing your point of view on things, not trying to emphasize his own.

 

[zorro_]

Zorro, you failed to notice that he was criticizing your point of view on things, not trying to emphasize his own.

I thought I had understood it properly. He's criticizing my opinion that neither power nor powerlessness can be argued to be more conducive towards corruption than the other. He is saying that one must always be greater than the other. I am disagreeing.

 

[LindseyDaBlender]

Id say powerlessness, it kills people to not be in there "own way".

 

[Hamouze]

I disagree with your first reason.

Here's an example:

1.X
2.Y
3. Therefore, X+Y.

This is a logical sequence and neither has been proven to be greater.

Showing the logical argument illustrates that in the language of logic your reason fails. But it is also patently false in a more general sense. Things can exist and be of different categories. My argument is that our X and Y in this case can never be compared, for they symbolize ideas that cannot be brought together in the way you have attempted. This is not a contradiction.

This is just incorrect. Here's the inherent flaw in your example: you're saying that you cannot compare two things in different categories making it impossible to compare them. You're right, it's pretty difficult to compare things in different categories, however anyone in their right mind can clearly see that power and powerlessness are quite in the same category.

We have X = power
And Y = lack of power or lack of X
We can just compare these on a scale of corruption.

You have to prove which one corrupts more. We can even put it in a numerical or algebraic sense and make X and Y unknown variables:
X = ?
Y = ?

If X = 2 and Y = 1 on a scale of corruption (power and powerlessness can easily be compared on a scale of corruption) then X > Y. The same can be said about X = 1 and Y = 2 then X < Y.

You're whole argument is that X and Y or rather power and powerlessness can never be brought together, but just looking at their definitions, the way they are used in this context, and their roots, we can easily see that they are comparable.

Unless you can prove to me why in the context of this question that power and powerlessness cannot be compared (don't tell me X + Y or any other hypothetical bullshit, give it to me in this exact context using these words) then your argument falls flat.

 

[Saint Versace]

I would have to say power, because as someone relatively powerless I lust for power, but have no power to abuse.

 

[Hamouze]

I would have to say power, because as someone relatively powerless I lust for power, but have no power to abuse.

There's a difference between corrupting and corruption. Powerlessness can be corrupting, leading you to dishonesty in an attempt to gain power. Your powerlessness makes you lust for power, and because you have no power to abuse, you will (or can) use dishonesty to try and gain power, hence it has corrupted you.

 

[Stickly]

There's a difference between corrupting and corruption. Powerlessness can be corrupting, leading you to dishonesty in an attempt to gain power. Your powerlessness makes you lust for power, and because you have no power to abuse, you will (or can) use dishonesty to try and gain power, hence it has corrupted you.

Everything said here is the same in the case of power also. Except you lust for power due to having it.

 

[Hamouze]

Everything said here is the same in the case of power also. Except you lust for power due to having it.

Correct, so your job is to prove one.

 

[Hamouze]

This is a valid point.

The opinion I'd like to add to this is that corruption within those of power can be exhausted, and therefore they release the powerful emotions eating at them.

But while we have someone who is powerless, as zorro stated, they can not bring their corruption into existence. It will lie within them and build and build, eating at their soul until they finally can hold it no longer and dramatically release it.

You cannot exhaust corruption, it's a perpetual cycle that feeds upon itself. In your case you are saying they are releasing powerful emotions eating at them. Who is "they" and "them"? Why are they releasing emotions? You're leaving a lot of open ends to your arguments and if you let me fill them in I won't do it the way you want to portray it so try to make it more specific.

Corruption cannot be "brought into existence". Corruption is basically inherent (not always the case does not always have to be inherent) evil or using ill ways to get what you want. Your argument makes no sense. You are personifying corruption as something that is eating at your "soul". Define soul, define corruption properly, and define the emotions that are released. None of the motives you have are defined and the context given is insufficient.

 

[zorro_]

This is just incorrect. Here's the inherent flaw in your example: you're saying that you cannot compare two things in different categories making it impossible to compare them. You're right, it's pretty difficult to compare things in different categories, however anyone in their right mind can clearly see that power and powerlessness are quite in the same category.

We have X = power
And Y = lack of power or lack of X
We can just compare these on a scale of corruption.

You have to prove which one corrupts more. We can even put it in a numerical or algebraic sense and make X and Y unknown variables:
X = ?
Y = ?

If X = 2 and Y = 1 on a scale of corruption (power and powerlessness can easily be compared on a scale of corruption) then X > Y. The same can be said about X = 1 and Y = 2 then X < Y.

You're whole argument is that X and Y or rather power and powerlessness can never be brought together, but just looking at their definitions, the way they are used in this context, and their roots, we can easily see that they are comparable.

Unless you can prove to me why in the context of this question that power and powerlessness cannot be compared (don't tell me X + Y or any other hypothetical bullshit, give it to me in this exact context using these words) then your argument falls flat.

Okay, I made a mistake. But your argument still gives out. There is a great difference between a thing being capable of compared to another thing (for everything is allowed of this possibility) and two things having a necessary difference in value. What makes you think you can assign a value to power and powerlessness (1 and 2 respectively)? What does this even mean? The variables 'X' and 'Y' will stand for power and powerlessness, so there's no way to escape this point. Evidently, we cannot resort to assigning a numerical value to 'X' and 'Y' in this case. So I continue my contention that they cannot be compared by virtue of what I have already said, which is that neither corrupts more than the other, for the level of corruption is not determined solely by itself, but only in its relation with a person's personality (hence it does not itself corrupt more or less than the other).

 

[Hamouze]

Okay, I made a mistake. But your argument still gives out. There is a great difference between a thing being capable of compared to another thing (for everything is allowed of this possibility) and two things having a necessary difference in value. What makes you think you can assign a value to power and powerlessness (1 and 2 respectively)? What does this even mean? The variables 'X' and 'Y' will stand for power and powerlessness, so there's no way to escape this point. Evidently, we cannot resort to assigning a numerical value to 'X' and 'Y' in this case. So I continue my contention that they cannot be compared by virtue of what I have already said, which is that neither corrupts more than the other, for the level of corruption is not determined solely by itself, but only in its relation with a person's personality (hence it does not itself corrupt more or less than the other).

Is a person's personality not shaped by whether or not they have power? Personality's change there's no doubt about it. But in this sense, personality is extremely negligible consider the fact that when looking at it on a holistic scale we are just measuring whether or not power or powerlessness corrupts more, NOT whether or not power or powerlessness corrupts John or Bob or Susan more. Again, you need to take things in a holistic sense.

Also, basically your argument is this: I don't know how to compare them so you cannot compare them. You don't hold an opinion yourself on the topic so you feel as if no one can. It's just not right, they can be compared just as I did for example in the OP. You can do it in a psychological context, a historical context, or even an opinionated context. Don't throw a topic out of the window just because you can't comprehend it.

 

[zorro_]

Is a person's personality not shaped by whether or not they have power? Personality's change there's no doubt about it. But in this sense, personality is extremely negligible consider the fact that when looking at it on a holistic scale we are just measuring whether or not power or powerlessness corrupts more, NOT whether or not power or powerlessness corrupts John or Bob or Susan more. Again, you need to take things in a holistic sense.

Also, basically your argument is this: I don't know how to compare them so you cannot compare them. You don't hold an opinion yourself on the topic so you feel as if no one can. It's just not right, they can be compared just as I did for example in the OP. You can do it in a psychological context, a historical context, or even an opinionated context. Don't throw a topic out of the window just because you can't comprehend it.

You are asking if power or powerlessness corrupts more. Corrupts what more? Corrupts people more. Who are people? People are John, Bob and Susan. If you want to abstract from particulars, what are you referring to? The undefined skeleton of a "general person"? How is that even conceivable? Explain that to me.

Also, if you think there is a common thread among people from which we can make a general conclusion about this, you must show: a) this thread is indeed common for all; b) how this supports your argument (aka what this trait is that makes power or powerlessness more conducive towards corruption).

I did not fail to comprehend the topic. I think I do comprehend it. I am attacking the topic; I will explain (again) the fundamental charge I am making (although the aforementioned charges are already compelling).
A: Power or powerlessness do not produce corruption in themselves - only when introduced to a human being (obviously).
B: Corruption (of the kind relating to power or powerlessness) therefore also involves the human being.
C: Power or powerlessness will bring about corruption in a way that corresponds with the personality.
D: Human beings have differing personalities and things interact with different personalities in diverse ways


Conclusion: Neither one can be argued to more or less cause corruption without reference to something OUTSIDE OF IT.

As this is the case, you must show that (on average) human beings are more corrupted by the one or the other trait. Even this, by the way, is merely a statistical association, and still does not prove that one MUST be a more corrupting influence.

If you are going to reply, make sure you address these points properly.

 

[Bolttz]

The first question that needs to be answered is &#8220;What causes corruption?&#8221; I believe that Fear is the, source of corruption for several reasons. Firstly, fear is an emotion that alerts people to danger and allows them to escape it, thereby improving their living conditions and removing themselves from a dangerous situation. Following that, corruption is the willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain. Fear causes people to want to improve their life, and corruption is people improving their life through dishonest means. As a result, fear directly causes corruption.
The second question is what causes more fear. Power or Powerlessness. Power, by definition means is the ability to do something. As a result, people with power have the ability to improve their life in a particular field. If one has power one doesn&#8217;t need to fear. Unless one is powerless on a different front. That is the root of the problem. No one person has complete power on all sides of them, everyone is powerless in some way, and in turn can experience fear and turn towards corruption. If one can&#8217;t protect their family, one fears for them and will do anything to save them. If one can&#8217;t do their job, they fear for their position and, if they fear enough, will go to any lengths to keep it. If one don&#8217;t know if they can keep their standard of living due to any reason, they fear the loss of it. This fear then causes corruption. So, powerlessness cause fear which causes the inclination towards corruption.
However, even if one was inclined towards corruption, they would still need a method for performing it, and this requires power. So while the powerless are more inclined towards corruption, the powerful are more able to act upon their corruption. In addition, people are more likely to work on exposing and taking advantage of the powerlessness of the powerful.
So while the powerful are more likely to have their powerless sought out and abused, they true cause of corruption is powerlessness.

 

[zorro_]

The first question that needs to be answered is &#8220;What causes corruption?&#8221; I believe that Fear is the, source of corruption for several reasons. Firstly, fear is an emotion that alerts people to danger and allows them to escape it, thereby improving their living conditions and removing themselves from a dangerous situation. Following that, corruption is the willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain. Fear causes people to want to improve their life, and corruption is people improving their life through dishonest means. As a result, fear directly causes corruption.
The second question is what causes more fear. Power or Powerlessness. Power, by definition means is the ability to do something. As a result, people with power have the ability to improve their life in a particular field. If one has power one doesn&#8217;t need to fear. Unless one is powerless on a different front. That is the root of the problem. No one person has complete power on all sides of them, everyone is powerless in some way, and in turn can experience fear and turn towards corruption. If one can&#8217;t protect their family, one fears for them and will do anything to save them. If one can&#8217;t do their job, they fear for their position and, if they fear enough, will go to any lengths to keep it. If one don&#8217;t know if they can keep their standard of living due to any reason, they fear the loss of it. This fear then causes corruption. So, powerlessness cause fear which causes the inclination towards corruption.
However, even if one was inclined towards corruption, they would still need a method for performing it, and this requires power. So while the powerless are more inclined towards corruption, the powerful are more able to act upon their corruption. In addition, people are more likely to work on exposing and taking advantage of the powerlessness of the powerful.
So while the powerful are more likely to have their powerless sought out and abused, they true cause of corruption is powerlessness.

This is a good logical progression but question one is not properly answered. You haven't shown that fear causes corruption - you've just said it. There can be other factors at play that are more significant than fear, and you haven't proven to the contrary. So, I can say that jealousy of another person's situation causes corruption, to which your argument has no reply. This means that fear is (currently) not shown by you to necessarily be the driving force of corruption.

 

[Bolttz]

This is a good logical progression but question one is not properly answered. You haven't shown that fear causes corruption - you've just said it. There can be other factors at play that are more significant than fear, and you haven't proven to the contrary. So, I can say that jealousy of another person's situation causes corruption, to which your argument has no reply. This means that fear is (currently) not shown by you to necessarily be the driving force of corruption.

Jealousy is caused by Envy, the longing of something others have. My previous point that people only want something so that they can improve their life still stands here as well. The object of Envy is now necessary to leave the current state of life. The same state of life that has become inferior to that of others. The fact that your life is now inferior puts it at risk and creates fear. Until the object of Envy is in your possession.

Almost any emotion can be connected to fear, so that is why I say that fear causes corruption. Or if not corruption exactly, the drive to improve your life through any means necessary.