|
CuriousLord -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/23/2007 11:19:52 AM)
|
People tend to act as they will to fulfill their own ends as they see fit. (There is an obnixiously common misconception that helping others isn't selfish. One who has this notion may have to suspend it for the sake of understanding this argument.) When one is beyond reproach of others, not needing their resources, acceptance, nor even the assurance that they don't be assaulted by them in the night, lessly observed traits may appear as previously insignificant selfish points become more important to the individual than anything that another could do.
I'd suggest, for analogy, one consider his own treatment of insects, or even unicelluar creatures. You do not care for them, do you? Is their existence often meaningful to you? Do you even care about how many you kill when you drive the car, or, in the case of some of the smallest creatures, kill when you move about? Suddenly, though, do you not become aware of them when they can hurt you? (HIV, scorpians, black widows, etc.)
To a far larger degree than insects, we empathize with other human being as a form of life, similar to ourself, and, therefore, in a way, part of ourself. The selfish urge to see ourselves in others is diminished when we can seperate ourselves from others in observing more contrasts. This is a minor factor, though, compared to the fact that one with power is no longer subject to the threats of others; he needn't be concerned with their reactions.
A mitigating point to all of this is that one who has considered himself one of others, and subject to them, during his formative years is liable to retain this notion as part of his personality. Such an individual, which one might coin "a moral" person, could attain absolute power and still act with regard for others, or, this is to say, without great corruption.
Edit: This was strongly abridged due to time constraints. (One may notice the start of points or examples which lack elaboration.) But there is one great example I did want to include. Abortion. Look at the stances on it.
People are kept in line by two forces: wanting to help the part of themselves that they see in others, wanting to help themself (to include the parts that they may see in others) by avoiding wrath, including that of by others.
The unborn are marvelous examples of the contrast between these two aspects. You see, one group sees themselves in the unborn- they see them as human, wishes to protect them (pro-life). (It is important to understand that the proper pro-life argument is not that fetuses are as adult humans, but surficiently like adult humans to recognize them similarily.) However, others do not to such a degree. Here, you have the pro-choice camp. Some of them see such a lack of themselves in the fetuses that they completely do not care. Others see a bit, and think that abortion is a tradgety, but not enough of one to push aside the interests of those who are more closely resembled to them.
Here, you have the line. I love this example since, normally, many people can come together and agree on which side of the line to be on- in this case, though, there's a fair split. And, wrath isn't an issue.
You see, two things are in play: empathy for self and wishing to avoid wrath. Fetuses offer no wrath. So, when it comes down to it, ignoring the opinions of other adults, one considers the level of empathy. Should they be corrupt (such as mentioned in a recent thread where Indian familes did not care for female fetuses), they would opt in their own, personal interests. Should they not be corrupt, they will opt in deference to the rights of the other- the other who is defenseless.
Fetuses are defenseless. How would you treat one? A good start at examining one's own corruption.
|
|
|
|
