If you are defining power as something that necessarily corrupts then it does obviously mean that. I don't see why power necessarily corrupts (power meaning ability to influence/control events to some degree).

I would basically equate power to ability. The 'ability' may be used as a detriment or not. If I have the ability to kill people (which I do and so does practically everyone else) I can apply this in ways that can be deemed as 'corrupt' or 'just' depending on differing circumstances.

Using power for personal gain and interest above all ease is 'corruption'. That is nothing like saying power causes corruption anymore than it is to say evaporation causes thunder storms or water causes animals to swim. Power can undoubtedly be talked about in terms of how corruption manifests but it is not a root cause in and of itself.

I mean power in the political sense: the power to direct and coerce other people. It can get to your head.

Giving direction isn't 'bad' though. That is my point. Simply because someone is capable of applying their will here or there it doesn't mean it is 'corrupt' the corruption is more about exactly what they are doing, how they are doing it and why they are doing it.

Power is just as likely to make changes for good and it is for bad (whatever the perception of good or bad may be).

I see far too much people trying to drag down others because they are competent and/or possess abilities they don't possess.

Basically I'm saying the term 'power' has been 'corrupted' top suit the means of those who generally lack competence. Is someone 'coercing' or 'suggesting' or 'guiding'? The term used to describe someone generally tells us more about the person saying it than the person they are referring to if they view power as some root of corruption (not that I am saying you said that).

I'd like to suggest a bit of discussion about the difficulties of addressing questions like this.

First, most of the site members are male, and rather few of them have made any study of feminist philosophies or women philosophers in general.

Second, most societies for most of history have been male dominated. I think it is safe to say, that if power does not necessarily corrupt, it at least tends to distort. It is very easy to come up with a list like 's showing that the extremes of virtue and vice, or talent and creativity, or any other vague metric are almost exclusively male. One might consider where Joan of Arc, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth1, fit in, but the list of females in power is so short, that the statistics are always going to be suspect when generalised. The argument for the mediocrity of a group that has always been excluded on the basis of their mediocrity is - weak. {And therefore unworthy of a male :wink: }

For another example of the circularity, it is often maintained that there have been no great female artists. Once we know this, we need not waste our time looking at women's art. Therefore it is not bought, does not hang in prestigious galleries, and no one really sees it. and the absence from the prestigious galleries proves that women's art is universally mediocre. But now spend some time looking at this gallery: https://www.facebook.com/female.artists.in.history/ - just look at how much of it there is throughout history, and the almost inescapable conclusion is that the trope of female mediocrity is itself part of the social system that keeps women in a state of subservience.

It might be an idea, if one is looking for a possible difference in the morality and ethics of men and women, to look at a couple of women philosophers' writings. For example, compare and contrast the moral philosophies of Jean Paul Sartre, and Iris Murdoch - a pair of C20th novelists and philosophers.

{I'm not sure, but I think that is the first mention in the thread of an actual woman philosopher; and that rather exemplifies the whole difficulty - that folks are content with their prejudices and do not want to challenge themselves, especially on a topic that impinges so directly on their own identity.}

Basically I'm saying the term 'power' has been 'corrupted' top suit the means of those who generally lack competence. — I like sushi

The phrase "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is attributed to Lord Acton who I suppose had his fair share of incompetence, but the phrase remained and IMO refers to something true. One could refer to Plato's Republic and its story about the ring of Gyges which grants its owner the power to become invisible. Through the story of the ring, Plato shows that an intelligent person would not behave justly if one did not have to fear any bad reputation for committing injustices.

If you have a lot of political power, you can hide your tracks to a degree, control the narrative. And then your bad deeds become invisible. So in the Republic -- and the Lord of the Rings -- the ring works as a metaphor for political power.

If you have a lot of political power, you can hide your tracks to a degree, control the narrative. And then your bad deeds become invisible. — Olivier5

I can see it both ways. But then power/ability can be subcategorized into power/ability-over-other and power/ability-with-other: power-over and power-with for short.

Societal power-with tends to remain so over time when all factions that constitute the power-with are in roughly equal balance of power-over ability relative to each other, each checking the other factions so that no one faction gains the upper hand in their power-over all other factions. The US government was once upon a time founded upon this principle. (Today its dynamics have changed in significant part due to the unchecked power-over of financial institutions – including the one-percent-ers - in relation to government; a different story though.)

My point being, in our society men typically - on average - hold power-over relations with women, this rather than power-with relations. On a different front, same can be said of society’s typical (average) relation with nature: it’s one where we want power-over nature rather than power-with the natural world - so instead of wanting to live in balance with nature we tend to plunder it at will … leading to things like global warming.

At any rate, if one qualifies power as power-over (and neglects power-with) then I find the infamous phrase you reference tends to make sense: “Power-over-others tends to corrupt, and absolute power-over-others corrupts absolutely.” Caveat: this where corruption is deemed to be the valuing of one’s own ego’s interests as superlative at the expense of all other’s interests. This would be of weak or degenerate morals, i.e. corrupt. It would also make etymological sense in a way: it would be the rupture, or the breaking apart, of all power-with structures when absolute (as in "togetherness breaking").

But then, the only way to combat a corrupt faction with increased power-over will itself be via some form of power. So power in and of itself cannot be the culprit, i.e. cannot be viewed as a perpetual bad regardless of context.

it has reference to sexist ideology. — L'éléphant

Sexist ideology? Is women being different from man an idea only? Or is it the stupid idea that women have less value? Women are different.

But then power/ability can be subcategorized into power/ability-over-other and power/ability-with-other: power-over and power-with for short. — javra

Not a terminology I am familiar with. To be clear, I am not saying that power is bad per se. I am not an anarchist, I recognise the need for leadership and discipline in the ranks. I am just saying that power tends to corrupt those holding it, almost mechanically, by way of constantly availing opportunities to do bad things and profit from them. Like Sauron's ring, it's a heavy burden. Hence the need for regular change at the top.

In context, I was trying to say that any difference potentially observed between men and women in terms of morality could be due in part at least to a lesser exposure historically to the corruptive effects of power. The corollary is that as women get more power, they will be exposed to more temptation to misuse such power.

If you want to test a woman's character, give her power.

In context, I was trying to say that any difference potentially observed between men and women in terms of morality could be due in part at least to a lesser exposure historically to the corruptive effects of power. The corollary is that as women get more power, they will be exposed to more temptation to misuse such power. — Olivier5

There are other experiments/studies that could at least suggest that there are fundamentals differences in moral traits that have nothing to do with having power.

Consider this:

"When it comes to negotiating a deal, “Males more readily justify moral misconduct by minimizing its consequences or otherwise excusing it,” write Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley, and Michael Haselhuhn of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Their study finds “a robust pattern by which men are more pragmatic in their ethical reasoning at the bargaining table than women.

“Men’s competitive behavior, more so than women’s, appears to be motivated by situational threats to their masculinity,” the researchers write in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. “When men feel like they have something to prove or defend against, they become more aggressive and competitive.”

--Men's Morals Are Malleable, Tom Jacobs, Pacific Standard

I don't see from the above that it's the doing of power that makes a difference between male and female view of ethical behavior. Although, once in power, a person could be in spotlight for everyone to see the unethical behavior.

Stop acting as if bad empericism saves flagrantly sexist claims from being sexist. We are, I hope, sophisticated enough on this forums to understand that universal claims about morality are dumb, that discussing a particular morality as if it is a stand in for all possible moralities is dumb, — Ennui Elucidator

Universal claims about morality are dumb? Really? You don't hold any values yourself, about your family? Friends? Your livelihood? I find it controlling whenever one says talking about a particular subject is dumb. It is intellectually annoying, let alone unoriginal.
Let's start with this premise: men and women are different in physiology and traits.
Then: are the differences due to culture/upbringing/nurture? Or was there a compelling reason besides culture/nurture? I already explained that, before modern civilization, men and women behaved differently. Let's start there.

Sexist ideology? Is women being different from man an idea only? Or is it the stupid idea that women have less value? Women are different. — Raymond

and
No one here is saying, at least I'm not, that differences in morals means differences in value of an individual. I hope this clears things up.

Universal claims about morality are dumb? Really? — L'éléphant

I’m a nihilist and an emotivist. Any other questions?

I deny your premise and find appeals to pre-history coupled with categorical statements boring. Or as you say, “annoying and unoriginal.” Your continued use of language in a totally unreflected manner will not sway me to join hands with you in your essentialist non-sense. I’m not even convinced yet that you understand the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism and what value, if any, your appeals to how things were has in a discussion of ethics.

Your opinion. Fair enough. You can argue/agree/question/view my point here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11886/choice-the-problem-with-power

It was about the way people use the term 'power' and questioning the validity of doing so when talking about 'power' in terms of 'corruption'.

Studies about men in a certain cultural context may say more about the culture than about men. In nowadays culture nobody can criticize women without looking like an asshole. But in same culture, one does look good when criticizing men, so that's what the feeble minded do.

Your opinion. — I like sushi

Sorry to bother you with it.

If I were a male criminal with conviction guaranteed, I'd make one request: A beautiful judge, A-list models for a jury, and a looker of an executioner! :love: I think I got my wish! Praise the lord!

... it remains a fact that power corrupts ... — Olivier5

You expressed an opinion and called it a fact. It should bother you far more than it should bother me I hope.

It's my opinion that it's a fact.

The primitive humans living in caves had no concept or awareness of socio-cultural constructs. Heck, they're primitives, with no language. You should be looking at this time in human civilization where males just took it upon themselves to fight wild animals and invaders because women would have zero chance of surviving those attacks. If this behavior of primitive males does not strike you as moral behavior, then what was it they were doing? Extra-curricular activities? Physical education? — L'éléphant

I’m not arguing against a general difference in behaviour, intentions or psychology between men and women, but against the need to define a ‘masculine morality’ versus a ‘feminine morality’ as a binary model. And whatever primitive humans’ awareness of socio-cultural constructs, you are making a lot of assumptions here about their understanding of ‘males’ and ‘females’ - most of which I would argue are aspects of your own socio-cultural construction rather than theirs. Still, they don’t need to be aware of socio-cultural constructs to be constrained by them.

Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be. An awareness of their variable capacity to do so effectively in different situations would have quickly become a social issue in family and tribal groups, as interests were shared. This would have led to gradually defining roles expected by tribal groups and/or leaders, and consolidated distinctions would have been made between moral behaviour for ‘men’, ‘women’, ‘children’, ‘elders’, etc, although based on a naive and limited understanding of differences and shaped by political, spiritual and ideological landscapes. None of this supports a necessarily binary model of male versus female.

I wouldn't call it a 'general pattern' anymore than I would call being born with ten fingers as a 'general pattern'. The reason we make distinctions is because they hold true 99% of the time.[/quote}

I would say the reason we make distinctions is because they simplify our understanding of the world, enabling us to condense information. I wouldn’t call being born with ten fingers a pattern - it’s a quantity. And the gender binary model arguably does not hold true even 95% of the time - it only appears that way.
— I like sushi

The same goes for scientific procedure.

Such views go both ways in regards to 'control'. Stating facts portrayed as attempts to control makes me suspicious about the underlying intent. — I like sushi

Not sure what you’re trying to say here, sorry.

I am just saying that power tends to corrupt those holding it, almost mechanically, by way of constantly availing opportunities to do bad things and profit from them. — Olivier5

Do you actually know (of) any people with whom this was the case?

Have you known people before they've attained a position of power, so that you can now compare what they were like before and how they are now, when they have power?

No one here is saying, at least I'm not, that differences in morals means differences in value of an individual. — L'éléphant

Why not?
Hitler is as valuable as Gandhi?

Here is what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Egypt#Female_genital_mutilation

It seems ancient Egyptian women fared better than current day ones, with a report of 87% of women there undergoing female genital mutilation currently. — Hanover

Who performs those FGM procedures? Who arranges for everything pertaining to it? Mostly men, or mostly women?

And I don’t think you’re understanding what I mean by a social event - you’re still viewing charitable giving, for instance, as a social transaction between consolidated quantities, giving and receiving. — Possibility

No, you're reading that into my words.

By social event I’m referring to a qualitative relation, regardless of quantities,

Yes.

that is limited by awareness.

No, awareness alone is too general.
Awareness of what?

More awareness leads to more connection and more collaboration, which leads to less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse or neglect. These destructive behaviours develop at the point where awareness, connection or collaboration ends - where ignorance, isolation or exclusion begins.

It's not clear what exactly you mean by "awareness".

For example, the Christian mob was perfectly aware of some people whom they considered "witches", and still burned them at the stakes.
Awareness alone is neutral.

Charitable giving viewed as a social event has no negative consequence in itself, regardless of one’s motivation.

When charitable giving is in the form of financial donations to a bank account or via similar impersonal venues, sure.

Have you ever seen the way Hindu women of a good caste "charitably give" to women of a lesser caste, esp. to the untouchables? They throw the gifts on the ground before the other person.

Less egregious examples abound. Like when someone gives you a gift and does so in a manner that you regret accepting it and then you never use the gift or only reluctantly.

The actual mode of interaction during the gift giving makes a world of difference, at least for the one on the receiving end. It's in this mode of interaction that the giver's motivation for the gift giving can become apparent.

A social event refers to an open opportunity for awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. Choosing to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, regardless of one’s initial perspective, reduces violence, hatred, oppression, etc in any act.

I'm thinking of the modus operandi of right wing politicians ... they'd agree with what you're saying ... and for any failure in the process blame the other person.

For your model to work, the prospective gift giver and the prospective gift receiver need to be morally synchronized. Either as equals, or as in a hierarchical relationship where the one with less power internalizes the image that the one with more power has of them and wants them to have.

I’m intrigued by your use of the term ’wholesome’. I take this to mean ‘conducive to or characterised by health or moral wellbeing’. I’m interested to see you expand on your argument that ‘unwholesome motivations’ for charitable giving such as a compulsion to be seen as a ‘good’ person are more likely to lead to violence - than what? I’ve yet to see charitable giving lead to violence in itself, regardless of the motivation behind it.

When someone gives to you something charitably, but also with contempt, how does that make you feel?

I’m also curious to hear a man’s supposedly more ‘wholesome’ motivations for charitable giving...?

If you're charitable out of self-hatred, feeling inferior to others, then that's not wholesome, is it?
It has been my experience of women in general that they tend to be charitable for all the wrong reasons. It seems that a man, when he gives, does so from a position of strength, whereas a woman does it from a position of weakness or "self-sacrifice".

It's this latter motivation that makes their gifts so bitter.

I have more to say on this but I'll wait how the conversation unfolds.

Who performs those FGM procedures? Who arranges for everything pertaining to it? Mostly men, or mostly women? — baker

Who asks questions they know the answers to?

Women are not the kind of innocent victims of men as so many people try to portray them.
This is a highly controversial point, hence it requires some introduction.

I am just saying that power tends to corrupt those holding it, almost mechanically, by way of constantly availing opportunities to do bad things and profit from them.
— Olivier5

Do you actually know (of) any people with whom this was the case?

Have you known people before they've attained a position of power, so that you can now compare what they were like before and how they are now, when they have power? — baker

It's not sudden, it takes some time to take effect. Take Erdogan: he started as a democrat and ends as a tyran. Same with Bonaparte, or the French socialists in the 90s, or the Lula administration in Brasil.

Let me ask you and other doubters here: why do you think there are such things as term limits or division of power in modern democracies, if not to control for such a risk?

Let me ask you and other doubters here: why do you think there are such things as term limits or division of power in modern democracies, if not to control for such a risk? — Olivier5

To give the impression that we're in a democracy; or "so that others may get a chance as well".

Take Erdogan: he started as a democrat and ends as a tyran. Same with Bonaparte, or the French socialists in the 90s, or the Lula administration in Brasil. — Olivier5

None of those were goody two-shoes prior to their ascension to power.
If anything, it seems more likely that one needs to be "corrupt" in order to seek and obtain a position of power to begin with.

To give the impression that we're in a democracy — baker

And why does looking like a democracy imply term limits and separation of powers?

None of those were goody two-shoes prior to their ascension to power. — baker

Okay. Name any politician who is in your opinion a 'goody two-shoes'.

Okay. Name any politician who is in your opinion a 'goody two-shoes'. — Olivier5

My vote is for Bernie Sanders. I see them as rare but not nonexistent.

No women have founded a religion — Agent Smith

Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science, the Christian Science Monitor, and wrote Science and Health with Keys to the Scripture.

Mother Ann Lee founded the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing, AKA the Shakers.

My vote is for Bernie Sanders. — javra

I like him too, mainly because he has managed to remain honest and resist the lobbyists and other temptations in Washington. But he never was 'in power' much so he is not a valid counter example to the corruptive effects of political power.