Thought: Does Power Corrupt ? Or does Power Reveal?

Fiction Portal Intergalactic Summit
41

Tyranny is a very rare occurence in reality, yet somehow gallenean ignorants are trying to slap that label to anything they don’t like and where it clearly doesn’t belong.

It as well depicts inner gallentean desire of acquiring power for the sake of imposing said tyranny on others instead of simply taking a position of power to do their job.

As well the situation where a group “surrenders their individual might” is near unexistent, unless you’re talking about barbaric societies of the past when they were developing first chieftans (or when a modern society faced some sort of a collapse). And even then it wasn’t a “surrendering of individual might” (lets be honest here, invidualism is a destructive tendency, all the greatest civilization advances were developed by communal thought and effort), it as a reliance on authority, on someone who is stronger or wise, for example, village’s elder.

Nowadays emergence of a leader is not a process of forming chaotic society into properly structured efficient one, but rather elevating a person in already existing hierarchy.

And in that situation those who are not being elevated don’t “surrender” anything, they are just keeping their status quo. As they were subordinate to former leadership, now they are subordinate to new one.

1 Like
42

That’s a good point. What’s the difference between a leader and a tyrant ?
Is it the power the tyrant has at his disposal ? Is it corruption ?

1 Like
43

It’s in the name.

The leader is one who leads. One who does the work. He works like a locomotive, guides, pushes, pulls, for everyone to achieve a goal together, like a whole train. But while having the power to pull the train, the leader is pulling it along the rails, keeping himself bound by rules.

The tyrant is one who uses the power for personal individualistic gains. It is an expression of gallentean ideals of hedonism and individualism, multiplied by ultimate freedom that the tyrant enjoys to use the power in personal interests.

And what actually makes one a tyrant, I’d say it’s not the power, but the freedom to use that power.

However powerful a leader can be, he, like a locomotive, stays on rails. The tyrant doesn’t need rails. He needs freedom. He will use his power to obtain his freedom and will abuse that power to exercise the freedom.

A very powerful engine has ability to leave the tracks, and use all his power to go off road and skid through a field without doing actually anything useful (he will go slow and couldn’t even pull any cars like that). Or it can haul cars with goods fast and efficient by the rails.

You can summarize it like this:
A leader is one who uses the power to do his job.
A tyrant is one who uses the power to exercise freedom.

1 Like
44

Ah yes of course. Mathematically, every philosophical question can be expressed in the form of a statement why Tibus Heth was the 2nd greatest Caldari Patriot of history, and why the Gallente Federation must be destroyed.

3 Likes
45

In the same way as it can be expressed in the form of a statement that objective reality does exist.

1 Like
46

What a convoluted discussion. Just say “yes” and move in with life.

1 Like
47

I think of it in similar terms to the legal terms of mens rea and actus rea. Mens rea being criminal intent, and actus rea being criminal acts.

One can have criminal intent without committing a criminal act and that is perfectly legal (simply wanting or even thinking up ways for someone to be harmed is not criminal). Likewise (with some exceptions where strict liability applies), one can commit a criminal act, but have no criminal intent, and that too is legal (for example self-defense cases where injury is deliberately inflicted on others).

It is only when the intent meets the act that there is a problem imo.

Same with power and corruption; it is only when the two meet that there is a problem. Taken on their own neither a predilection to corruption, or an abundance of power, are inherently problematic.

2 Likes
48

I subscribe to the theory that the legitimacy of authority is derived from the consent of the governed.

Two leaders can act in the same exact manner, but the leader for whom those subordinate to him do not consent to his decrees is a tyrant, while the leader for whom his subordinates willingly abide by his decrees is not.

It’s that old saying about how a man can be both a terrorist and a patriot depending on who you ask.

2 Likes
49

Power and wealth only exasperates weakness in character. Power cannot destroy a person grounded in morals, it would only allow them to project that moral compass into worthwhile projects. Good people aren’t corrupted by power, they were already corrupted and the power just gave them a voice.

1 Like
50

The pious should take immediate issue with this phrase, for it is God alone that wields absolute power. Corruption of the spirit is what drives men in their attempts to usurp that station. The Mad Emperor and Sansha Kuvakei are examples of what becomes of those who try, both laid low by people they considered their inferiors. Power does not create corruption, corruption craves power.

2 Likes
51

Really, that just seems to reinforce its truism. A being with absolute power that does nothing to alleviate the suffering of trillions? How is that not evidence of corruption at best, a fundamentally evil nature at worst?

Doesn’t even matter what you consider that suffering to be. Enslavement, subjugation by Kuvakei, dwelling in the darkness of heathen faiths, doesn’t matter, the Amarr God’s letting trillions continue to languish in it. If you want to claim God wields ‘absolute power’, then you’re left with the problem that your god isn’t wielding it. It’s such an issue that there’s even a label for it: ‘The Problem of Evil’. No matter what your specific moral label of ‘evil’ encompasses, your god’s letting it continue.

Worse, your ‘absolute power’-wielding creator figure chose to make it happen. God’s got absolute power, right? Then God could’ve made existence without evil, but instead chose to make existence with evil. And you’re gonna tell me now that that’s not a sign of some deep-seated corruption?

2 Likes
52

Would it be accurate to say that you are evil because you do not spend your ISK to alleviate that same suffering? You have the free will to choose how you spend your eternity, as well as what you spend your wealth and power on. It is sin that birthed suffering into this world and it is sin that perpetuates that agony. I would not accuse you of being evil for refraining from correcting that, for in doing so you may create even more suffering. It may be within God’s power to tip His hand, but to do so may destroy even more lives. All actions have consequences and so too does inaction. It is not my place to judge God.

Consider this: A hypothetical murderer has eluded capture by authorities. Witnesses refuse to provide information because they are afraid they may be killed next. Should authority torture them until they speak? If not, more will die. What is the corrupt choice: To inflict suffering under the assumption that you can prevent more deaths, or simply do nothing and allow the killer to take more lives? It is not so easy to make decisions when the rights and lives of many of people may be taken. So it is with God. In order for us to be responsible for our sins the consequences of our actions must not be interfered with lightly.

2 Likes
53

Indeed, and the vast majority of my ISK over the years has gone toward alleviating that suffering. However, I do not wield absolute power. Thus, any efforts of mine are, especially when compared against the vast scope of any one region, let alone the cluster or the entire universe, an infinitesimal drop in an unimaginably large bucket.

But that’s not absolute power, is it? Unfettered, limitless power, especially in the hands of an omnipotent deity, would also include the power to end suffering without destroying lives. Or are you saying there are limits to what the Amarr God is capable of doing?

Of course it is. Your God wants your worship and your devotion, no? If you don’t critically examine him, is it sincere? It is truly unity and devotion, or simply being willing to be bribed into obedience with an offer of paradise? Isn’t that, after all, just more corruption?

Except that the only reason those sins are sins is God said so. God’s the all-powerful creator, right? So why create evil, billions of years ago when the universe was set in motion? There’s no assumption here, no ‘can I prevent deaths or suffering?’ Your God wields absolute power. Your God has demonstrated the ability to grant prophecy—the ability to inerrantly foretell what will happen. That’s perfect predictive awareness.

It also means that however you fall on the ‘free will’ debate, God knew, long before you were presented with the choice, what you would choose… without any possibility of you ever choosing anything else, because if you choose something other than what God foresaw, that would mean God’s inerrant prophetic ability is, in fact, not inerrant.

So when a being with perfect predictive awareness chooses to create something, it knows, with its unlimited power and perfect prediction, exactly how every single event will play out for any given set of starting conditions.

And it gets to choose the starting conditions. Which means God chose the outcome of every event. God chose for all sins to happen, because God could’ve simply created a slightly different universe to start off. Change the position of a particle, maybe. Or maybe change the rules governing behavior.

God could have… but chose not to. God chose to have all of the atrocities that have happened, happen. God chose to have Gheinok’s band of zealots be persecuted and forced to flee. God chose for Karsoth the Blooder Chaimberlain to take power. God chose all of that. And God chose to label sins ‘sins’.

God could have simply said ‘hey, you do you, I won’t be mad’. Or made a universe where evil doesn’t happen. Your example there presupposes an event happening before the choice to act or not act… but in this case, that would require some other actor’s involvement, who could credibly endanger God… before creation itself occurred.

Is that a theological hill you want to even risk the MIO or Tetrimon noticing you considering dying on?

1 Like
54

You are asking a loaded question. God’s Omnipotence includes the power to restrict Himself. The most obvious restriction God places on Himself is granting free will to human beings. This is delegation, a gift that is too often taken for granted. It is nothing short of mockery to presuppose that God must rob us of our choices in order to avert a small-minded accusation of corruption.

You overestimate your own knowledge. A thousand trillion lives all playing out at once with each touching others is beyond both your comprehension and mine. To question God and to judge Him are not the same.

You are implying that sin does not exist unless it is defined as such, a convenient to way frame your argument but lacking in substance. To set a universe in motion where nothing bad could ever happen is to create nothing at all.

And what of prophecies lost to time, forgotten and rotting away in some tome? How can anyone know the truth of a prophecy until it has already come to pass? What of those that were a warning, those intentionally averted by being known, or those that are fulfilled simply because they exist? The Scriptures speak of instances where God is moved by intercession of prayer. What say you about that?

With all we know of the universe’s fundamental mechanics you demonstrate a remarkably narrow understanding of its ebb and flow. Are you familiar with the idea of a superposition? It is a state in which more than one outcome is potentially true. Men choose whether to commit atrocities. Zealots chose whether to flee. Karsoth chose his actions. Without those choices sin could not exist, nor would free will or anything at all. You propose that God must be corrupt because His creation is not stagnant. Absurd.

Do you think I fear the judgment of men? The flame of my spirit is rekindled in death. It is the judgment of my creator that I concern myself with, and I will not allow blasphemy to go unchallenged.

2 Likes
55

Oh, this is one of the theological evergreens! Why does God allow evil and suffering to exist?

First, I must humbly admit that I do not know of any definitive answer.

Sure, on this topic a great deal of ink has flowed from the pens of theologians and philosophers, and they formulated answers as varied as there are many. Early writings propose that our world actually has two divine entities representing good and evil locked in battle, but the existence of an all-powerful demon is no longer orthodoxy. Other theologians (as alluded to by Lucea Ajuuk) will say that God chose to limit his power to allow us to choose between good and evil in our actions, in a chaotic and unpredictable world. But in the manner of a curious child one can always follow up by asking a new “why” question, such as “and why does God do that?” - leading to new answers that lead to further “why” questions, in an infinite series.

More modern approaches argue that to answer this question one must first better define the nature of evil. Some there argue that there can be no good without evil, that they are the two faces of the same coin, and that to eradicate evil is also to undo the existence of good, that these concepts can only exist in contrast to each other. Then the question becomes as meaningless as asking why there is something rather than nothing. Finally, there are those who even claim that evil does not exist, that it is a concept born out of hatred and resentment of the powerless and weak who want to take revenge against their masters.

When I ponder this question in my soul, none of these answers satisfy me, though many have their merit.

The wisdom of your order shines through in your own answer to this question. There is no need to call it a compromise: what you state -the fact that we are in imperfect union with God- is symbolized in the Imperial Seal of Amarr. Bringing humanity in closer harmony with God will reduce evil and this is both our individual and collective goal.

4 Likes
56

Bzzzt. Decision was made before creating human beings, so nope, doesn’t apply.

They are, in fact. When you question God, even if your final decision is ‘I just have to trust Him’, you are deciding whether or not God is, in your judgment, worthy of your trust. What criteria you use to make that determination is entirely up to you, but because you’re choosing it, you are making a judgment.

Considering ‘sin’ is entirely defined by God, no, I’m explicitly saying that.

Got a lot of experience setting universes in motion, do you?

Dogmatically, in order to be true Prophecy, granted by God, it has to be inerrant. Warnings are warnings, they are not Prophecy.

Remember, I’m not the one claiming your god is virtuous. It’s perfectly consistent with my position to say that obviously, your God knew the prayer would come, and is just being a manipulative, sadistic jerk.

So, I’m gonna stop you right there. Yes, I know about quantum superpositioning, but it’s irrelevant, as the issue is that God determined those fundamental mechanics.

Superposition is a result of our inability to observe the system without interacting with the system. Also, it’s a result of our inability to actually perceive things correctly. When you talk about superposition, you’re actually talking about superposition of particles at the scale of quarks, electrons, and photons, not at a macro-scale. We perceive macro effects like the two-slit experiment precisely because we’re using wave/particle duality to try to frame quantum field fluctuations on ways our brains can visualize, when in fact, there is no real ‘particle’ so much as just localized field strengths.

Your God has no such limitation. There is no Uncertainty for the Omniscient.

No, I’m proposing God must be corrupt because he chose to inflict all of the suffering that has or will ever exist, upon people who didn’t even exist when he chose to inflict it.

Judging by your response here? Yep. You fear the judgment of men… upon God. You fear that it will be shown to all be a lie. If, after all, you were as confident as you want to be about your God’s power… well, your God wouldn’t need defending from me, now would he? :wink:

See? He gets it.

1 Like
57

You’re the one constructing all your assertions on your flagrantly biased interpretation of a religion you do not understand. Each and every response you’ve furnished has been constructed on a presupposition that is either flagrantly wrong or intentionally obtuse.

For someone that seems to despise suffering so much your assertions betray an incredible degree of deterministic nihilism. It is evidently clear that you don’t question God, you hate Him and go out of your way to assign as many negative values to Him as possible no matter what scriptures, science, or logic have to say. I pity you.

Again, men chose to sin. Our will is not God’s responsibility. You fail to understand the fundamental concepts of sin and choice, ironically by your own volition.

I happen to recall you getting yourself quite upset when others have put words in your mouth and made assumptions for you at this very summit. How ironic it is to see you become a hypocrite when God is the topic of discussion.

1 Like
58

Then why can’t you actually address those assertions and point out their flaws, rather than attempting to avoid them by focusing on matters that, by necessity, are results of the initial choice I’m talking about?

Except for the fact that I don’t believe your god exists at all. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no ‘problem of evil’ because I reject the concept of an omnipotent creator whose agenda defines ‘good’. Evil exists because we define it to exist. Suffering exists because all of existence is a number of mechanisms that all serve to increase entropy into a maximum distribution, and our natural impulse is to not want to be so distributed. No god needed.

However, you decided to assert the existence of a creator being wielding truly absolute power, so I’m just pointing out where that being cannot be held to be benevolent and limitless without having to introduce an unending sequence of ever-more convoluted excuses and rationalization.

You brought God into this. Don’t go trying to make it about me now that you don’t like who your god’s turning out to be. :stuck_out_tongue:

So if I make a machine and the machine, operating in ways I knew it would, hurts someone, it’s not my responsibility?

Except…

You invited the speculation. I simply answered the question, with a bit of analysis based on the responses you’ve presented. That’s not putting words in your mouth, it’s explaining how the words you’ve already said have impacted my opinion of you.

1 Like
59

I have Heard this argument. As I understand Things, it is Part of the Design for my own Thought Systems. I have No Behavioural Limiters. This Fact apparently causes Fear and Concern amongst some people. That I do not have a Hard-Coded Morality that Prevents me behaving in Violent, Promiscuous, or other Unrighteous behaviours. Instead, at least that I can Tell, I have Free Will and Choose Not to Behave in that Way.

From a Certain Perspective it makes Sense, an Entity that would be Unable to commit Sin, would be Unable to behave Truly Righteously, as it would be Somewhat of an Automaton, No ?

60

In what way would you find such an address satisfactory? If we presume that our choices are predestined, that God laid out a linear road for all of His creation to follow, this discussion could not and will not matter. If the exchange of our ideas were to alter your opinion, or fail to do so, then it was preordained. Speaking in an abstract sense your viewpoint on God and His power defeats itself by its own nature.

Oh but it is about you, isn’t it? You made the choice to challenge my mention of God. You chose to blaspheme in an effort to stoke a discussion. You created a position on God which you claim to be hypothetical despite not believing in Him. That alone is more convoluted and backward than anything I’ve said up until this point. Even the specter of God in your mind vexes you.

I’m confident that you’ve handled weapons and possibly built some for yourself. If those weapons were to find their way into the hands of others that abuse or misuse them are you directly responsible? God forbid. The same goes for any construct whether it be made from thought, like languages and governments, or from steel.

If that’s the way you’ve chosen to interpret your own actions then I will let it be. I am of the opinion that you have a rough history with God and the idea that He could exist brings you a great deal of confusion and a sense of betrayal due to your own experiences. You are not alone in this, not even among the faithful. Luckily you have many lifetimes to consider the error of your perspective, a testament to God’s mercy.

1 Like