Choice: The Problem with Power

I like sushi

Power we know in the physical sense is about the ability to work. In a more human sense this doesn't quite apply in the same manner as we live across a span of time and not merely in some abstract mathematical moment of 'here and now'.

In a personal sense we tend to view power as the ability to control. This can mean a number of things as we can think about control in various ways. Choices can completely alter the amount of power we have from moment to moment be this increasing or decreasing our ability to control one item or multiple items.

I would argue that mostly choices dictate how powers shift. The complexity of choices we're surrounded by in human life can both negatively positively impact our course be this immediately or in the future. The art of wielding power is to do so in a truly economic sense. That is, to allot for future requirements yet not to overwhelm ourselves with excess power.

Choice is also necessarily entangled with what we refer to as 'freedom' (and/or 'agency' if the reader prefers). Superficially we tend to frame freedom as something we want more of, yet in reality freedom carries the burden of responsibility. If we have greater and greater freedom to act as we wish then the consequences such actions are ultimately our responsibility as our freedom to make choices increases.

Finally the term power is often regarded as something always applied extrinsically. This isn't the case as we can nurture self control and impact ourselves. Our ability to control ourselves comes through power and power is more often than not better spent in increasing our self-control rather than impinging on others.

It does seem to me that any regard towards the term power in a mass political sense (meaning beyond the individual intent) is an inaccurate use of the term. Such a judgement on such a scale is full errors and misconceptions so any observations made are strains by the individual will pretending to view an objective whole.

Sentiments like 'power corrupts' are just that. They are myopic in both application and reach. To consider power as the sole factor of corruption or corruption as the sole factor of power is to think without making choices, to think without freedom, to imprison ourselves in one thought and ignore our own power to make meaningful and deliberate actions of benefit.

Hopefully that is enough to get a discussion rolling?

Merkwurdichliebe

I think you need a more definitive thesis here...however, I will add: outside of choosing for one's self, the individual is powerless, and ultimately irrelevant.

Tom Storm

Sentiments like 'power corrupts' are just that. They are myopic in both application and reach. — I like sushi

I have no doubt that Lord Acton's quote is mostly accurate - the actual quote is 'power tends to corrupt' (the tends is important and makes the quote). From personal experience of working in diverse areas - media, the arts and health, I think Acton was on the money. The rest of the quote is, of course, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Absolutely right, which is why democracies have a separation of powers and often a bill of rights to protect people from the abuse of power. Not that this works entirely well.

I'm not really sure what the rest of your OP is getting at. I think it might help to narrow it down a bit

Power we know in the physical sense is about the ability to work. In a more human sense this doesn't quite apply in the same manner as we live across a span of time and not merely in some abstract mathematical moment of 'here and now'. — I like sushi

I can't work out what this means. Sorry.

I like sushi

I can't work out what this means. Sorry. — Tom Storm

Power as in physics (physical sense and quantified). In reality the kind of power we talk about in terms of personal control and agency is often misplaced as being a quantity in the same said sense because that is just how language functions.

Less power now may mean more in the future and therefore less power is better if we're looking to increase our power - which I argue against as a dead certainty given that with power comes freedom and responsibility.

If power tends to corrupt then how much of it? My point being there isn't much meaning in the manner people throw the sentiment around (irrespective of the actual original source). People believe power is just what instigates corruption and nothing more. That is why I say it is a superficial view.

I like sushi

↪Merkwurdichliebe

Well, no. The literal dictionary definition is the ability to influence others. I was framing it as 'control' because if the individual has more control it will affect others - we don't live in isolation after all right?

Caldwell

↪Tom Storm

Tom, well said. I was going to respond, but yours will suffice.

Merkwurdichliebe

Merkwurdichliebe
Well, no. The literal dictionary definition is the ability to influence others. I was framing it as 'control' because if the individual has more control it will affect others - we don't live in isolation after all right? — I like sushi

Yes, okay: Power as the ability to influence others. I will re assess the op

I like sushi

↪Merkwurdichliebe

The main thrust behind my interest is how power has different meanings yet in political circles (interpersonal or individual) it's usually viewed in a negative sense.

I like sushi

↪Caldwell

What is this 'power' and 'corruption' then? Are they the only points to consider here?

I like sushi

I have no doubt that Lord Acton's quote is mostly accurate - the actual quote is 'power tends to corrupt' (the tends is important and makes the quote). From personal experience of working in diverse areas - media, the arts and health, I think Acton was on the money. The rest of the quote is, of course, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Absolutely right, which is why democracies have a separation of powers and often a bill of rights to protect people from the abuse of power. Not that this works entirely well. — Tom Storm

What is this power you’re talking about? Is it the ability to influence others or something entirely different.

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. Here ‘control’/‘influence’/‘manipulate’/‘help’ are hard to distinguish from each other once we strip away the subjective perspectives and goals.

Would a lack of power also be considered ‘corrupt’? Meaning lacking any ability to control or make choices for oneself or others?

Do you see my point of interest now? Also, you’ve brought corruption to the table. Is it reasonable to say you believe power and corruption are inextricably bound. I’m not sure I could agree to this but I wouldn’t dispute that they are all to often parcelled up together (which is part of what I am questioning the validity of).

If we talk about corruption without using the term power what would we say about it. Is what we’d say anything much to do with our ability to control, assess and manage our choices, and does this have a stronger relation to our sense of freedom and responsibility (or sense of authorship) rather than power.

Note: I feel the need to talk about this because I’ve seen various uses of ‘power’ in various different guises of Critical Theory.

Tom Storm

What is this power you’re talking about? Is it the ability to influence others or something entirely different. — I like sushi

Acton was referring to government power, but it's an observation others have made. I don't need to explain to anyone here the uses and abuses of power in government. I think it is a function of power that those who seek it most are frequently ruthless. Chasing power is like chasing wealth - the most inadequate personalities seem to go after it at all costs.

One related theme is the idea of leadership - how power is used to create cultures and behaviours.

Would a lack of power also be considered ‘corrupt’? Meaning lacking any ability to control or make choices for oneself or others? — I like sushi

Not sure this makes sense. Corruption is choosing to behave dishonestly in return for personal gain. So no.

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. Here ‘control’/‘influence’/‘manipulate’/‘help’ are hard to distinguish from each other once we strip away the subjective perspectives and goals. — I like sushi

Some people might think they are the same but I don't. I'm not much interested in explorations of 'power over others' in limited roles like a doctor or teacher or cab driver. I am more interested in power in connection with leadership (organisations or governments). But my interest is fairly limited.

Tzeentch

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. — I like sushi

Individuals who truly care for others will not seek to control them, will not pressure or persuade. To help someone is to bring someone to insight voluntarily, and allow them to subject your advice to all scrutiny and critical thought, and not to be satisfied with anything less.

I like sushi

Acton was referring to government power, but it's an observation others have made. I don't need to explain to anyone here the uses and abuses of power in government. — Tom Storm

I think you need to explain what this power is though. Adding ‘government’ before the term doesn’t explain what it you’re talking about - this is the thrust of what interests me because I believe (and am observing here) something of a reluctance to explicate what power is and why it leads to said ‘corruption’.

Not sure this makes sense. Corruption is choosing to behave dishonestly in return for personal gain. So no. — Tom Storm

Dishonesty doesn’t necessarily have be external. I’m pretty sure the dishonesty towards oneself is a greater problem than dishonesty towards other (as it appears to be the seed of the later). Fair enough you said ‘choosing’ which is basically where I am seeing a commonality in what we mean when referring to ‘power’.

Furthermore there is often more to gain from cooperation than from dishonesty. Then there is being dishonest towards what one believes to be a ‘corrupt’ individual in order to do any with perceived ‘corruption’. See my point? I don’t think we can discuss much if you cannot tell me with more depth what ‘corruption’ or ‘power’ is, or you can just state clearly that you believe they are one and the same thing. I wouldn’t agree but at least I could then say something more about that and we could perhaps have an interesting discussion.

Some people might think they are the same but I don't. I'm not much interested in explorations of 'power over others' in limited roles like a doctor or teacher or cab driver. I am more interested in power in connection with leadership (organisations or governments). But my interest is fairly limited. — Tom Storm

I don’t think they are the same nor would I expect anyone else to either. My point was perspective dictates the delineation between one and the other.

What is the ‘power’ governments/leaders have then? Are all leaders/governments ‘corrupt’? Not trying ti put words into your mouth, just trying to understand the what and where of the corruption you see in leadership/governments beyond siphoning off some funds here and there and helping out their buddies. I think it is fair to say some leaders/governments do a better job than others, so what are the better ones doing with their power if they are?

I’m happy to go down that route if you want.

I like sushi

Individuals who truly care for others will not seek to control them, will not pressure or persuade. To help someone is to bring someone to insight voluntarily, and allow them to subject your advice to all scrutiny and critical thought, and not to be satisfied with anything less. — Tzeentch

Perspective. What you may deem a kind of gentle exposure to critical thought I may view as domineering. “The road to hell …”. I think forcing someone to do something for their own good is something people will, and even should, do in their lives. We will sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.

From what you say above I could give it the slight twist of saying people who truly care do nothing. Therein lies the problem if ‘power’ - be this knowledge, knowhow or lived experience offered in the form of advice (its persuasion is a subjective/judgement matter).

TheMadFool

Power is, as I see it, simply a measure of the scope and the intensity of the effect something/someone can have. So, for instance, the president of the USA is supposedly the most powerful man in the world for the simple reason that fae's causal range (the area fae can influence) and causal intensity (the magnitude of faer influence) is global and astronmical respectively. Compare that to the president of East Timor and you'll get the idea.

The Problem With Power

It seems that power and goodness aren't linked in any necessary sense i.e. power doesn't imply goodness and nor does goodness imply power. In other words, the following combinations become possible:

1. Powerful & Good
2. Powerful & Bad
3. Powerless & Good
4. Powerless & Bad

As you can see, 3 necessitates that we seek power i.e. 1 (think God) but the problem is we have to steer clear of 2 (evil dictator) and ensure that 4. It's complicated!

Tzeentch

↪I like sushi

I think that is a great argument for why even genuinely well-intentioned people should be cautious when offering their help to someone.

I like sushi

↪Tzeentch

Which would lead to my personal take on what 'power' is. Intended action resulting in intended outcomes. I think power in this sense is both rare and almost impossible to recognise given that we have very little in the way of measuring such things.

I like sushi

↪TheMadFool

As above from my view. It is about intention and outcome (and I agree good/bad is irrelevant).

I would still point out that generally 'power' is something that has more modern negative connotations that not due to various political views today and Critical Theory at large. That is why I'm asking what people mean by the term and whether or not they've looked at it in any great depth.

I have started to form a different way of viewing corruption now ... will share once I've mulled it over a bit more.

AJJ

What you may deem a kind of gentle exposure to critical thought I may view as domineering. “The road to hell …”. I think forcing someone to do something for their own good is something people will, and even should, do in their lives. — I like sushi

You seem here to have criticised an approach for being potentially domineering before advocating for being as domineering as possible.

TheMadFool

I agree good/bad is irrelevant). — I like sushi

I would still point out that generally 'power' is something that has more modern negative connotations — I like sushi

:chin: Please explain how what seems to be a deeply entrenched fear of power (negative connotation) vis-à-vis good/bad is irrelevant.

I like sushi

↪AJJ

I don't know what that means. I haven't criticised any approach there though?

I was just making absolutely clear (so I thought) that the lines between items like 'manipulation,' 'persuasion' or 'influence' have a good degree of overlap and therefore people do have differing views as to what constitutes one and no the other.

I like sushi

↪TheMadFool

What? You pretty much said it yourself right? Power is power, it isn't necessarily 'good' or 'bad'. If you think otherwise I didn't see that at all, sorry.

AJJ

↪I like sushi

You used the saying (I assume), “The road to hell [is paved with good intentions]” in reference to a gentler approach that you said could be perceived as domineering. Seems critical to me.

TheMadFool

What? You pretty much said it yourself right? Power is power, it isn't necessarily 'good' or 'bad'. If you think otherwise I didn't see that at all, sorry. — I like sushi

I did but I also mentioned how goodness/benevolence seems to be a must to prevent problems.

I like sushi

↪AJJ

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

I like sushi

↪TheMadFool

Okay. Do you mean that you view power as a something more related to problems than 'good'/'bad'?

Tzeentch

Which would lead to my personal take on what 'power' is. Intended action resulting in intended outcomes. I think power in this sense is both rare and almost impossible to recognise given that we have very little in the way of measuring such things. — I like sushi

Intentionally doing harm is much easier than intentionally doing good. So it seems the power to harm is much less rare than the power to do good.

I like sushi

↪Tzeentch

Fair enough. It is easier to break something than build something short term. What about the short versus long term? Is power better spent toward better aims than worse?

Note: I don't see any reason to agree with your view of power to do harm being easier as the use of power, by degree, the same amount of power. As I said above I don't see power as either bad or good, nor would I be in any position to dictate what is good or bad for any individual without a better overarching understanding of their given situation.

AJJ

↪I like sushi

Then you may have just used that saying inappropriately.

I like sushi

↪AJJ

If you have something to add please feel free to join in :)

TheMadFool

Okay. Do you mean that you view power as a something more related to problems than 'good'/'bad'? — I like sushi

My point is rather simple: The Problem With Power is that it can link up with evil. You know what happens then, right?

Choice: The Problem with Power

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions