Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

1/15/2015

John Dalberg Acton was an English historian, commonly known as Lord Acton

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
Letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), published in Historical Essays and Studies, by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1907), edited by John Neville Figgis and Reginald Vere Laurence, Appendix, p. 504; also in Essays on Freedom and Power (1972)

Your Task: respond to the quote and add your opinionated argument on its validity in history. A great post will surely reference historical facts to help strengthen the argument.

Due by Midnight on January 18th; counts as final bonus opportunity for first semester grade.
.

5 Comments

Celine Canlas

1/15/2015 10:46:02 am

I disagree with John Acton. I believe that power does not necessarily corrupt, rather heightens one’s pre-existing morality. If a morally right person is given power, the deed that person will do with that power tends to be just and selfless. However, most people do not know what they stand for, so most people exploit their power for themselves. Blaming power for corruption is like blaming guns for killing people. Power, like a gun, is an object that can be used for both good and bad, depending on the one who yields it. John Acton is referring to politicians, however, we can view this in a bigger picture. Philanthropists have power and money, and they use their power to help charity and the world. However, if we focus in on the corrupt politicians, then we do find ourselves believing that power caused them to become abusive. Throughout history, we find many absolute monarchs to be lavish, extravagant and selfish. What do we blame for these traits? Power. However, a thought to consider is what if that person has no sense of justice or morality from the start. Due to that one simple fact, we can infer that he will exploit his powers. However, Martin Luther King used his power for the better. He had influence to change people’s mind, and he used this power to open people’s eyes to the world around them. He helped people see that Roman Catholic popes are not always right, just and equal. In fact, he criticized how popes use their power to their advantage. In history, we find that popes misuse their power to rage unnecessary warfare and exploit their religion to control the majority of people. A key thing is that Roman Catholic popes from medieval times are chosen not because they are religious nor selfless, but rather were chosen by the monarch or from a secular authority. Thus, power is a tool that can be used either the better or the worse, depending solely on the person who holds it.

Gary Gutierrez

1/16/2015 09:59:14 am

Regarding Lord Acton's opinion on power, I myself would have to go the route of disagreement. Although power definitely played a role regarding the corruption of kings, leaders, and various other high ranking individuals, it wasn't the only factor that contributed to their wickedness. Human characteristics in society, like greed, envy, gluttony and pride were far more responsible for the misconduct of these infamous figures than power. Power was merely a way for them to fuel these characteristic desires. Real power, which I've taken from a respectable source and my own wit to be known as how little control society has over you, only means that you gain more freedom to do what you want. In this sense, having power does not immediately equate to corruption, rather it corresponds to having more liberty in your actions(which, of course, would lead to corruption when mixed with the previously mentioned human-societal characteristics). As such, when an individual gains something known as "absolute power," it simply means that society has no control over them. And when society loses its grip on you only then can you truly become free. Perhaps this is the reason why philosophers constantly seek power, in order to understand true freedom.

Extra note: An interesting thought came to my mind while thinking about this. Perhaps the reason why we, as a society, fear a man gaining absolute power so much is due to the fact that, upon receiving it, they become truly free. And, as we as humans know well within our hearts, true freedom would be almost like returning to the "barbaric" ways of nature, where no power is held over you, yet you yourself have no power. Maybe it's the fact that civilized life has carved into us the idea that that way of life is primitive and dirty, makes us fear this true freedom even more.
(Probably screwed this part up a bit, but I needed to vent)

Yongxin Xie

1/16/2015 11:11:05 am

“Power tent to corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.” Yes, I AGREE with John Dalberg Acton in "Power tent to corrupt" but I DISAGREE with "and absolute power corrupte absolutely" What is power? Someone said knowledge is power, or wealth. The way power mean to me is authority, can be a governent, an emperor, a state, or even a civilization. Power is an individual ideas that once it fall will create the corruption of others. In Islam, the death of Muhammad in 632 cause the disappearance of the umma community or sharia law. Not only part of the Islamic society had disappeared and started the concflict of Suni and Shia by arguing the caliph should goes with blood relative to muhammad or a new leader who capable for the job. Use Muhammad as an example, the death of Muhammad had created the confliction and weakening the society. Another example is the fall of Rome in 476, when the German invasion, political corruption, slaves labors, and failing economy caused the empire collaps. The extreme wealthy empire had became nothing. After the fall of Rome, the last emperor in western Rome Odoacer over throw the Western empire and political system in Western Rome cannot be centralize, instead they divided into carious kingdoms. Rome had been a powerful empire, and yet, when the empire collapse power was corrupted.
However power did corrupted from people to people, gevernment to government, but endless great leaders had been step up. For example, after the collapse of Han dynasty in 220 C.E. And a few years of warring state period, then quickly came to a new Sui dynasty, emperor Wendi had constructed 2000 miles water cannal that made the internal network and trade commerce available in all part of China. As well as after the collapse of Rome Justinan had became the emperor in Byzantium empire, he had created the new law code and Hagia Sophia which made the Russian converted into Christianity because of this beautiful building. As you see many leaders, emperors, had created greatest achievements in the past.The corruption of one individul does not mean the corruption of world with that being said absolute power cannot corrupt absolutely.

Jazzmon Ferguson

1/18/2015 04:13:06 am

I do agree that power corrupts. Even though there have been great rulers in this world, even with out knowing power is corrupting you.People’s sense of “moral identity”—the degree to which they thought it was important to their sense of self to be “caring,” “compassionate,” “fair,” “generous” and so on—shaped their responses to feelings of power. The people with power have emotions and feelings which will in the end corrupt their ultimate decision because they will do what they believe is correct based on their needs and not what it's right ultimately. Also because if the power they possess they are more able than others. Resulting in personal attributes rather than the idea of an overall goal for their society.

Christina Peries

1/18/2015 12:10:49 pm

While power can corrupt, I do not believe that it corrupts everyone who holds it. An excellent example is Gandhi; he was a famous leader and had many followers, but despite this he did not live a lavish lifestyle, abuse the power he had over his followers, or even take revenge on the British. Instead Gandhi led nonviolent protests and defended India's poorest classes from oppression. Gandhi had influence over people not only ethically but religiously as well; he used this power for the better, trying to rid India of British oppression in the most peaceful way.

Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Leave a Reply.