WMN: t3_2oom50_t1_cmp2mip

[TITLE]

CMV: Power doesn't corrupt people.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

All too commonly, we hear the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't believe this to be true. I don't believe that it is the power that corrupts people, but the fact that people themselves are corrupt to begin with, and that obtaining a position of power just offers them a medium through which to act on their corruption. I do believe that the majority of people are, in fact, corrupt. So assuming you take a random person and insert them into a position of power, it is likely that they will abuse the power that is granted to them. But, I also believe if you take a person who isn't corrupt, and insert them into this same position of power, they will not abuse the privileges and power of the position that is granted to them. I think teachers illustrate this point very well, especially because it is much easier to become a teacher than say, the President of the United States. In this regard, you tend to have a larger sample size and have many more types of people to consider. In most cases, I would say that teachers tend to have absolute power over their classes, at least with regards to day-to-day activities. (Generally, if a teacher says to do something, it is expected that the student comply to the demand of the teacher. If the student disagrees, typically the matter is resolved at a later date with the intervention of a teacher's superior.) Taking this assumption that teachers have absolute power over their students, you still tend to find a balance of teachers who abuse their power, and those who don't. If the saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" were true, all teachers would abuse their power, since it is the power that corrupts the person, and not the person that corrupts the power. Parents work well for this example as well. Literally anybody can become a parent, as having a child is as easy as having sex. I would even say that parents definitely have absolute power over their children, even moreso than teachers. But even with parenting, you still tend to find a balance. Some parents are incredibly strict and unfair, dictating arbitrary rules for their children that they themselves may not follow, or rules that have no legitimate reason other than "because I say so." (I'm not arguing the fact that sometimes parents use the "because I say so" justification even if the rule does have a legitimate reason, but sometimes parents don't actually have a reason other than "I say so.") However, you also find parents that are incredibly fair with their children. If a child does not agree with a rule set by a parent, and argues his or her case fairly, there are parents that would reconsider and change their rule for the sake of being fair. If "absolute power corrupts absolutely," parents like the latter would not exist, as the power they hold over their child would corrupt them. TL;DR: CMV: Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely; absolute corruption corrupts power absolutely.

[doc_rotten]

Teachers themselves don't have absolute power over their classroom. They have administrators, school boards and parents to contend with. They may have power over the class, but it is not absolute and can be challenged. With that power, new corruptions are evident in some teachers that did not exist before they had some power. Corruption need not be absolute for power to be abused. You would also have to show a time, when there was absolute power, but zero corruption. I doubt you can find that in any historical record going back to Hammurabi. If you want to say humans are corrupt and corruptible, that's fine. But that too is an argument against empowering them over others and definitely about allowing them absolute power unchecked.

[Dhalphir]

Absolute power means you answer to nobody for anything you do. None of your examples described absolute power.

[Raintee97]

A teacher doesn't have absolute power. I have tons of checks and balances. Everything from my teacher evals to parents writing e mail to the principal. If teachers actually had absolute power then you would be seeing a lot more abuses of that power. If I could yell and berate a kid and there would be no negative consequences, then I might be inclined to do that. Sure, I shouldn't do that, but what is to stop me if I want to. What's to stop me from failing a kid I simply don't like rather than going off of merit. Teachers are a bad example because we don't have absolute power, far from it. If we did you would be seeing a lot of the abuses you're talking about.

[Inceptagon]

"Knives don't kill people because we're already weak to sharp objects and getting stabbed is just an opportunity to demonstrate it." And also, when you put someone into a position of power, you have to realize that they are going to have to deal with many moral dilemmas that don't have widely accepted answers, much like most of the threads in this sub. Like a decision between letting one person die, letting another person die, or letting them both die. The friends of the one who ends up dying are likely going to see the leader as evil and corrupt regardless of whether he or she made the right decision according to whatever moral code he or she enforces. Whereas when someone isn't in power, their moral decisions have less repercussions and they can simply hide from scrutiny more effectively.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

There were definitely a lot of good replies to this thread. However, this is not one of them. That analogy makes no sense.

[iserane]

It's true that there are good seeds and bad seeds in any grouping you can think of. People typically take actions based on incentives. The power itself doesn't do anything, but in positions of power you generally have better opportunities. The better opportunities often involve pandering to another parties wants and needs. Lets say a company wants to pass a bill and needs people to advocate it. They'd likely reward an advocate that has some authority (like a doctor, senator) much more so than they would reward a random person on the street. The position of power provides access to better opportunities, and those opportunities are often what people view as the corruption aspect, but the reward is so great that it's worth it. It's like gambling, if the reward provided is large enough, people are more willing to engage in risk-taking behavior.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

I agree with this, but my argument is that it's not the power that encourages people to engage in the risk taking behavior. It's the people themselves, the power just provides them with a medium through which to act on this, which was in my first paragraph of the OP. You pretty much agreed with my point, that the power provides an opportunity to use the corruption, but is not the cause of it.

[iserane]

[STA-CITE]> that the power provides an opportunity to use the corruption, but is not the cause of it [END-CITE]Couldn't this just be used to dismiss any argument? I mean the two studies other users linked fall into this as well. Are you more looking for the mechanism by which power would induce corruption? Because even if we knew 100% that power actually directly corrupts people, it would be hard to show that without appealing to the notion that it just provided the means. For your stance to be true, it would require that all people, if given the same opportunity, would make the same choices regardless of the power they have. Just as having a better education influences what decisions you make, I think power itself does influence the decisions you make.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

∆ I believe I have presented an argument which can't really be proven false. While it hasn't explicitly changed my view on the matter, I presented it in such a way that my view cannot be changed, as I'm assuming that we need evidence which is impossible to collect in order to prove this one way or the other.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iserane. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/iserane)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[ADdV]

I would really encourage you (and others) to watch [this TED-talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg). It's by the scientist behind the stanford prison experiment and he talks about [this experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and [the Abu Ghaib scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse). He is an authority on this topic, and he believes that good people can turn evil based on the situation. (So basically the opposite of your view.) Quick note: the TED-Talk has some shocking images. There is a warning message before, and if you don't want to see it, you really should skip it. (I have no idea how necessary this note is, but I don't want people to see things they didn't want to see.)

[GnosticGnome]

Instead of teachers, let us look at rock stars and actors. You'll find that many if not most of these kinds of celebrities become quite entitled. They make obnoxious demands of the people running their venues, expect others to wait on them even when it isn't their job, have difficulty relating to other people (note their high divorce rate), and treat their former friends poorly. This is *not* as often true before they became famous. It is something that happens to them afterwards, such that their friends note 'you've changed, man'. I think the teacher example is less apt simply because teachers can't really benefit by abusing their power over their students. They may have absolute power over their kids in the context of the class, but if they attempt to use that power to ask for money, window washing, or a footrub they'd likely be fired. Additionally, their interactions outside school don't carry the power with them, so they have numerous people keeping them honest on a day to day basis. As a note, this has been cited by many historical leaders as a method of avoiding corruption: spend some time disguised as a commoner, or find a trusted advisor who is unafraid to call you on your crap. You may have power, but you don't automatically have to let that disconnect you from a grounded life.

[GameboyPATH]

[Check out this psychological study](http://planetsave.com/2013/12/23/a-rigged-game-of-monopoly-reveals-how-feeling-wealthy-changes-our-behavior-ted-video/) done involving how peoples' attitudes and behaviors change in a fixed game of Monopoly. Given that the study involved a random sampling and that all other variables were controlled, this demonstrates that the relatively greater financial power is the causing variable that lead to irrational beliefs of superiority and entitlement. While not direct evidence to the causal of "corruption", by whatever definition we consider for that, this does demonstrate evidence supporting the theory that bestowed power can greatly change one's behavior and attitude, even when it is not rational.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

I don't really like the study because I just don't think a game is representative of real life. At the end of the game, there are no consequences. It's also only a 15 minute game, and the game is rigged. Also, correlation and causation are two different things, which you do recognize in your comment. So I would defend my position by saying that the people who were on the rigged side of the game were already people who I would have considered to be corrupt. The speaker argues that the increased wealth increases self interest, but I disagree. I would say that people are self-interested to begin with, and that the wealth just offers them a means to express this self interest on a higher level.

[GameboyPATH]

Psych experiments that wish to accurately examine a very specific concept (like greed or corruption) do tend to sacrifice real-life familiarity for the sake of minimizing the effect of outside variables. So while this study may not be as easily conveyed to a broader, real-world example, it very accurately analyzes the variables that it intends to measure; that is, the causal effects of financial power on behavior and attitude. And I use those words intentionally: **causal effect**. As in, *not* correlation. A randomized, controlled experiment measures the causal effects of one manipulated, independent variable on another measured, dependent variable. The randomization of the sampled group (whoever got the greater money was randomly determined and assigned by the researchers) demonstrates that the independent variable of the starting money amount is the causal factor of behavior, **not** the individual factors of the people involved. This is why I chose this experiment in particular: a demonstration of monetary power *causing* a change in behavior and attitude.

[Mavericgamer]

You're using a very narrow definition of "absolute power", and I'd argue even "power"; On the surface, a teacher has some power over her class, but when you get right down to it, the teacher has little to no actual power over her students. What can they actually do to enforce any rules, other than what amounts to altering the length of time the student spends with the class, or kicking the responsibility up to the higher levels? All in all, they don't have much power at all. And parents? They can take things away from their kids, but ultimately the only enforcement power they have is to get the police involved, or greater physical strength to prevent their kid from simply taking back what they want by force. If the parents use any force to enforce their "power", then child abuse, CPS, etc. So, no real power there either. Now, let's look at some people with actual power: The police. How often have we been hearing of police overstepping their bounds/abusing their power? And how much of that do you think is just because it was *too extreme* to cover up, and indicates a ton of other shadyness going on that most people don't know about? They have power, true power, over life and death, with minimal (though this is changing) power.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

I think teacher's have more power than that. Considering teacher's can issue detentions, and have a huge say in a student's final grade, I would say they have more than just a little power. Even parents. They can take literally everything away from their children. They can ground them, meaning that the child is not able to do anything for an arbitrary amount of time. Force them to do an unrealistic amount of chores, they set all the rules in the house. I'd say this is a pretty big example of power. I think even your police example agrees with my post. Sure, I agree with you that many police officers overstep their bounds and abuse their power. It may very well even be the majority of officers. However, the fact that there are police officers out there who don't abuse their power strengthens my point, because if the power corrupted, there would not be officers that don't abuse their power.

[somethin1234]

Detention is no where close to taking a person's life away

[VortexMagus]

Parents have a lot of power, in my opinion. Not only can they use any form of discipline they see fit, up to and including physical violence, but they can utilize mental and emotional violence as well (you're stupid, you're a terrible son/daughter, no one will love you, I'm going to lock you in this dark, cramped etc). But the real kicker is that these parents can refuse to financially support or shelter their child - all a parent has to do is walk away and there is nothing the child can do to stop him or her. There isn't even much a court of law can do, if the parent is fairly determined and leaves the country/changes his name/any of a dozen other things. Children are abandoned all the time - that's when they go to State institutions, orphanages, etc. So really, a parent has a near-absolute amount of power over their child's life. Whether they can use this power effectively, well, that's a different story. Not a lot of parents really threaten to abandon their children if they're too rebellious, for example.

[Mavericgamer]

[STA-CITE]>Considering teacher's can issue detentions [END-CITE]Altering the time they have to stay in the class [STA-CITE]>and have a huge say in a student's final grade [END-CITE]Grades don't particularly matter, in the grand scheme of things, beyond being an indicator of how much work a student was willing to put in. The only thing it DOES influence is if the grade is failing and the student has to, well, spend more time in the class. [STA-CITE]>They can take literally everything away from their children. They can ground them, meaning that the child is not able to do anything for an arbitrary amount of time. [END-CITE]Okay, sure, but they can't actually enforce that. They can lock the kids in until the kids learn to pick locks, they can take stuff away until the kid doesn't care about its stuff, and parents are, typically, ineffective at stopping a child from being rebellious. [STA-CITE]>However, the fact that there are police officers out there who don't abuse their power strengthens my point, because if the power corrupted, there would not be officers that don't abuse their power. [END-CITE]This (and actually, your whole post, now that I think about it) assumes that corruption happens instantaneously and for everyone. It doesn't. Corruption is a slow process that can be resisted to some degree, just as gravity can be resisted by the magnetic force and whatnot, but the long game almost always wins given time. So it's possible that some are more resistant to corruption, but to quote Harvey Dent: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

[NuclearStudent]

[STA-CITE]> Grades don't particularly matter, in the grand scheme of things, beyond being an indicator of how much work a student was willing to put in. The only thing it DOES influence is if the grade is failing and the student has to, well, spend more time in the class. [END-CITE]It makes a big difference for uni applications.

[Mavericgamer]

And that particular threat is only viable if you particularly care about which university you go to, or don't go to a community college for the first 2 years of schooling (which a lot of people do anyway since that's way less expensive), or indeed even care about post-secondary education at all.

[NuclearStudent]

Pretty much everyone that cares about learning at school cares about making a decent mark. Even if you don't care about university/trade schools, students get directly punished by their parents for receiving poor marks.

[Mavericgamer]

Uh... no, I never did in high school. I didn't care about grades because they actively got in the way of my learning. Math teachers who assigned 50+ homework problems a night, when I had better things to be doing with my time, and I understood the math already. I graduated with something like a 2.0, went to community college and aced my classes, transferred to a 4 year, got my BS, got a job I actually enjoy... And yeah, my parents totally *tried* to punish me for my bad marks, I just didn't actually listen to them, snuck out, etc. They made my life slightly more *difficult* at the time, but that was hardly power.

[NuclearStudent]

They've changed educational doctrine since you were in school. They abandoned mass math drills, repetitive composition writing, and spelling testing. Mandatory routine hw seems to be the exception rather than the rule. If a student shows up, does the mandatory assignments, studies the material on the tests, and works hard on the projects, they do well.

[Mavericgamer]

Based on your vernacular, it sounds like you're in the UK? As far as I can tell, the US isn't getting much better in that regard. It's certainly location-specific, at any rate. But we digress; regardless of this, the ability to give out bad grades is hardly absolute power.

[NuclearStudent]

It might be culture-specific, but having parents perma aggro can mean hell. The parents can refuse to feed you and whack the devil out of you with a tick and take everything you have, from your binders to your computer you use for work and the mattress you sleep on. A parent wouldn't do that for any ordinary problems, but I would definitely not have a bed to sleep in if I came home with a 50% average.

[john_ft]

I think the [Stanford Prison experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Conclusions) should be sufficient in changing your view. It was a psychological study by Philip Zimbardo, professor at Stanford. Basically they concluded that it is the situation of having power that makes regular people do "corrupt", evil things, not a preexisting personality trait.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

I think this is the best response to my argument so far. Even in the Wiki article, though, there is some refutation by Erich Fromm who argues that it is the personality of the individual that affects this behavior. This is definitely the most compelling argument to the contrary, but I'm still not sure it changes my view, as the criticism section on the Wiki page is huge and I'd even go as far as to agree with many of the points raised, especially the role-playing argument. I feel like many people may have felt like there weren't serious consequences to their actions due to the very nature that it wasn't real.

[john_ft]

I'd suggest you really look into the study itself before just reading the criticism of it and accepting that (confirmation bias). Even if they didn't feel like their actions weren't "real", the fact is they did pretty messed up things, and for no reason other than the situation. They chose totally random people, and randomly assigned them to be guards or prisoners. Also, the criticism from Fromm is in regard to the prisoners I believe, not the guards.

[Imdouce]

I am very familiar with this study. I have always wanted to think that if there was just one benevolent person in the group of guards that was fearless and insistent to stand up to the rest, the outcome would have been different.

[Libertas_Libertatis]

∆ I concede that I haven't deeply looked into the study, but I mentioned on another comment that I presented the argument in a way I can't really be proven wrong. I can just keep saying that "I believe that it was the person's nature that caused the corruption, not the power." My view isn't explicitly changed, but I also don't think this point can be proven one way or the other.

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

If you're willing to do a bit of scholarly reading, there's a large body of psychology papers on how power increases the likelihood of dishonest and hypocritical behavior. I'd recommend anything by [Joris Lammers](http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zKbMzlgAAAAJ&hl=en).

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/john_ft. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/john_ft)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[john_ft]

Thanks :) it's a really interesting study though! you should look into it!!